A    REPLY, 


TO 


<*  A  VINDICATION  OF  THE 


HT  OF  INFANTS 


« 


TO  THS 


SI    ORDINANCE  OF  BAPTISM  : 


m 


Jambs  Itussc-ij  i:.m.s.c 


AN  ADDRESS 


& 

*^_— 


BT  TH  11END  THOMAS  POLUr 


SJIJCSTElt    OP    THE    CO'?U. 


IP 


»Jf  . 


£3 

« 

^ 

Q_ 

.5* 

3 

$ 

-o 
re 

*^. 

IE 

•^>? 

1-3 

Q- 

#  w 

*-er> 

fe 

o 

O 

^ 

5 

^■■^ 

m 

0) 

o 

c 

«* 

o 

bfl 

cC 

»55 

H 

<. 

5> 

^ 

o 

~o3 

3 

fe 

E 

.5 

w 

M 

t  J 

>2 

^- 

« 

CO 

t> 

Pn 

C* 

c> 

^ 
fe 

-a 

c 

^ 
$ 

V* 

0) 

^ 

'  « 

V 

£L 

I3 

<z. 

""""^  /i^1 

8 

^ 

ZL&X 


tm 


■4 


<*%* 


•     A   REPL  Y, 

TO 

«  A  VINDICATION  OF  THE 

RIGHT  OF  INFANTS 

TO  THE 

ORDINANCE  OF  BAPTISM 

Ev   the   rev.  James  Hvsscli.,  m.m.e.c." 


IN  AN  ADDRESS 

BY  THE  REVEREND  THO?,iAS>POLinLL, 

MINISTER    OF    THE    GOSPEL.'' 


Search  the  Scriptures.     Jksus  Christ, 


SAVANNAH: 

'RIKTED    BT    SEYHOU3    CJ    WILLIAM* 

1812.     . 


PREFACE. 

Courteous  Reader, 

THIS  small  attempt,  to  point  out  the  fatla* 
clous  reasoning  employed  in  44  The  vindication 
of  the  right  of  infants  to  the  ordinance  of  Bap- 
tism, by  James  Russell,  minister  of  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Denomination;"  and  at  the 
same  time  to  direct  your  mi?ids  to  the  great 
covenant  head  of  the  Church,  has  been  ready 
for  publication  some  time  since.  Various  caus- 
es, however,  have  prevented  its  earlier  appear- 
ance from  the  press. 

IFhen  I  first  began  to  address  Mr.  Russell, 
on  the  subject  of  his  piece,  it  was  not  with  any 
intention  of  publishing  my  remarks  from  the 
press.  But  at  the  earnest  solicitation  of  many 
of  my  highly  valued 'friends ,  I  consented  to  send 
it  abroad  in  this  manner. 

The  style  is  coarse,  but  the  subject  hath  em- 
ployed the  mind  of  Jehovah  from  everlasting. 

That  God  may  make  this  address  a  blessing 
to  his  people,  is  the  prayer  of  your  devoted  ser- 
vant. 

THOS.  POLHILL. 

Newington,  (Effingham  County,  > 
Geo.)  July  13,  1812.  j 


ADDRESS 

To  the  Congregation,  to  whom  this  production  vfao 
first  read,  after  public  timely  notice  of  ir.u  intention 
to  take  into  consideration  Mr.  J»usst  ll's  tveri, 
iiiii/i  a  view  of  exposing  'tis  fake  and  u,u>criptural 
arguments. 

Friends  and-BRETHREN  : 

It  is  to  be  lamented  that  those,  who  profess 
to  be  followers  of  Christ,  and  take  for  their 
guide,  the  word  of  God,  should  be  divided  in 
their  opinions,  and  that  schisms  should  abound 
among  them.  But  such  is  unhappily  the  case, 
and  it  becomes  indispensibly  necessary  that 
errors,  when  they  are  discovered  to  have  crept 
into  the  churches  of  the  Redeemer,  should  fee 
faithfully  pointed  out,  lor  the  purpose  of  being 
avoided. 

When  I  was  last  at  this  place,  I  heard  much 
of  a  pamphlet,  published  by  Mr.  James  Rus- 
sell ;  my  desire  was  excited  to  see  it,  and  as 
I  returned  home  the  next  day,  I  borrowed  it 
from  a  friend.  On  perusing  it,  I  immediately 
discovered  that  Mr  R.  had  attempted  to  over- 
throw the  basis  of  our  holy  religion  ;  and  as 
I  think  that  God  has  set  me  for  a  defence  of 
the  truth,  it  becomes  my  duty  to  expose  what 
I  conceive  to  be  contrary  to  it. 

It  is  not  a  fondness  for  opposition  that  brings 
me  forward  to-day  against  Mr.  R.  I  can  ap- 
peal to  Him  who  kiiovveth  the  heart,  for  the 
rectitude  of  my  intentions.  Had  Mr.  R.  con- 
fined his  arguments  to  infant  baptism  only, 
without  proceeding  to  the  denial  of  a  futxUw 


ADDRESS.  v. 

mental  article,  (nay  the  foundation  itself)  of 
our  holy  religion,  you  would  never  have  heard 
from  me  in  this  public  manner  on  the  subject : 
particularly  as  so  many  abler  pens  have  been 
employed 'to  set  forth  the  truths  I  have  endea- 
voured to  exhibit  in  this  address. 

Mr.  R.  has  denied  the  everlasting  covenant 
of  grace  made  with  Christ,  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world,  and  endeavors  to  place  our 
hopes  of  salvation  upon  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision, made  with  Abraham.  After  I  had 
read  his  work,  I  searched  the  scriptures  for 
my  own  greater  confirmation  in  what  1  con- 
ceived to  be  the  truth,  putting  down  my  re- 
marks on  them  in  writing  as  they  occurred ; 
and  this  I  did,  by  way  of  address  to  Mr.  R. 
In  these  remarks,  that  important  article  of 
the  svstem  of  divine  truth,  the  everlasting 
covenant  of  grace,  made  with  Christ  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  appeared  to  my  mind 
to  be  fully  established  :  I  then  thought  it  would 
be  well  to  establish  it  in  my  brethren's  also. 
And  lest  it  should  be  said  that  1  had  taken  ad- 
vantage of  Mr.  Russell  and  his  friends,  in 
making  ray  remarks  on  his  production  without 
public  notice  of  my  intention,  I  did,  on  this 
day  two  weeks,  announce  from  thepmpit,  at  the 
Sister  Ferry  Meeting-House,  that  I  would,  on 
this  dav,  take  his  book  into  consideration,  and 
attempt  to  point  out  some  of  its  absurdities. 
Accordingly  I  have  attended,  and  the  following; 
is  .the  address  which  1  have  prepared  en  the 
occasion. 


A. REPLY,  &c. 

Rev.  JAMES  RUSSELL, 
SIR, 

I  HAVE  read    with   attention  your  pam- 
phlet, vindicating  the  right  of  infants  to   bap- 
tism,  under  the  new  testament  dispensation 
upon  the  authority  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant' 
the  covenant  of  circumcision.     If  vou  had   a 
proper  spiritual  view  of  your  text,  and  context 
and   would,  without   prejudice,  compare    the 
masterly  arguments  of  the  apostle,  with  those 
passages  of  the  old  testament,  to  which  he  re- 
iers,  and  the  promises  which  he  repeats  •  you 
would,  1  am  persuaded,  think  very  different- 
ly,  and  acknowledge  he  had  in  view  far  great- 
er blessings  and  privileges,  than  the  mere  ini- 
tiating of  Abraham  and  his  posteritv  into  a  vi 
sible  church.     Neither  would  you  "attempt  to 
make  believers,  Abraham's  to  become  Christ's 
but  Christ's,  that  they  might  be  Abraham's 
spiritual  seed.     In  short,  you  would  entirely 
give  up  your  far  fetched  argument,  to  prove 
an  ordinance  of  the  christian  church,  unless 
as  a  writer  observes,   «  You  will  become  all 
tnmgs,  to  ail  men,  to  save  some  from  the  bap- 
tists."*  You  have  a  very  happy  knack  of  prov- 


Doctor  Baldwi*. 


ing  what  you  please,  and  cf  imposing  upon* 
the  weak  and  illiterate,  who  either  will  not,  or 
cannot,  read,  and  judge  for  themselves ;  of 
which  class  I  am  truly  sorry  there  are  so  ma- 
ny in  our  land.  If  men  would  search  the  scrip- 
ture (as  commanded)  and  do  it  from  proper 
motives,  with  care  and  supplication,  1  think 
the  number  of  your  disciples  would  be  small, 
especially  if  your  preaching  is  as  contrary  to 
the  word  of  God,  as  your  writing.  I  have 
heard  of  the  power  of  your  reasoning;  it  must 
be  powerful  indeed,  or  men  must  be  very  ig- 
norant, if  you  can  reason  them  out  of  the  sim- 
plicity of  the  gospel,  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  I  have 
a  specimen  of  the  power  of  your  reasoning  be- 
fore me  :  any  man  may  carry  his  point  in 
the  same  way  (if  he  can  reconcile  it  to  his 
feelings)  by  perverting  the  scripture,  drawing- 
conclusions  from  false  premises,  and  when' 
almost  exhausted  and  ready  to  sink,  buoy  up 
by  assertion. 

Do  you  really  believe  that  the  seed  which 
Paul  says  was  Christ,  was  the  same  to  which 
the  land  of  Canaan  was  promised  for  an  ever- 
lasting possession  ?  Or  have  you  through  po- 
liteness, or  from  some  other  motive,  follow- 
ed Mr.  Worcester  ?  If  the  conditions  of  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  had  been  complied 
with  on  the  part  of  Abraham's  seed,  to  whom 
the  promise  made,  had  nespect,  they  must 
have  had  possession  of  that  land  at  this  day  ; 
for  God  had  bound  himself  by  promise  that 
they  should  have  an  everlasting  possession  of 
it — It  will  not  be  denied  that  all  the  promises 


of  God  are  literally  fulfilled,  whether  they  be 
absolute  or  conditional.  If  conditional,  they 
will  be  fulfilled  if  the  conditions  are  performed. 
If  unconditional,  they  will  be  fulfilled  without 
respect  to  any  conditions  whatever. 

The  promise  made  to  Abraham  and  his  seed, 
when  God  commanded  him  to  circumcise 
himself  and  his  male  household,  was  condition- 
al ;  Abraham  was  to  walk  before  him,  and  be 
perfect,  (upright  or  sincere)  and  he  was  to 
circumcise  his  flesh,  his  children,  and  his 
servants  ;  he  was  to  have  the  land  of  Canaan 
and  God  was  to  be  his  God.  Abraham  obey- 
ed, and  left  the  land  in  possession  of  Isaac, 
his  seed,  with  whom  the  covenant  was  renew- 
ed, and  with  his  seed  also.  What  was  the  cov- 
enant ?  xii  Gen.  verse  7.  u  Unto  thy  seed  ^will 
I  give  this  land  :"  Gen.  xv.  18.  "  In  the 
same  day  the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, saying,  unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this 
land."  The  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan 
appears  to  be  the  covenant  on  the  part  of  God  : 
Gen.  xvii.  8  *'  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  and 
thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  art 
a  stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  ever- 
lasting possession;  and  I  will  be  their  God." 
This  chapter  appears  to  be  a  renewal  of  the  two 
promises  made  some  years  before,  with  a  con- 
dition now  added  by  God,  to  be  performed  on 
the  part  of  Abraham  and  his  seed.  When 
God  first  gave  the  land  of  Canaan  to  him  by 
promise,  and  by  possession,  he  had  no  seed, 
neither  had  he  any  when  he  gave  it  to  him  by 
covenant  i  when  Ishmael  was  thirteen  years  old, 


9 

God  renewed  his  covenant  and  added  a  condi- 
tion, to  be  observed  by  Abraham  and  his 
seed,  in  their  generations.  The  first  part  of 
this  17th  chapter  contains  a  declaration  of  what 
God  promises — 'k  And  I  wiil  make  my  cove- 
nant between  me  and  thee,  and  I  will  multiply 
thee  exceedingly  ;"  vs.  2.  "  As  for  me,  be- 
hold my  covenant  is  with  thee,  and  thou  shaft 
be  a  lather  of  many  nations  ;"  vs.  4.  u"  And  I 
will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and 
thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  genera- 
tions, for  an  everlasting  covenant ;  to  be  a 
God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee  ;"  vs» 
7.  Thus  far  we  find  the  absolute  promises 
of  God.  It  does  not  carry  the  appearance  of  a 
contract.  God  is  absolute  in  all  his  declara- 
tions :  "  I  will  make  my  covenant."  "Behold 
my  covenant  is  with  thee."  "  And  /  will 
establish  my  covenant,  and  I  will  give  unto 
thee  the  land  ;"  vs.  8.  "  And  God  said  unto 
Abraham,  thou  shalt  keep  my  covenant  there- 
fore, thou  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  gen- 
erations. "  "  This  is  my  covenant  which  ye 
shall  keep  between  me  and  you,  and  thy  seed 
after  thee;  every  man  child  shall  be  circum- 
cised ;"  vs.  10.  "  And  ye  shall  circumcise  the 
flesh  of  your  fore  skin,  and  it  shall  be  a  token 
of  the  covenant  between  me  and  you  ;"  vs.  1 1. 
"  And  my  covenant  shall  be  in  your  fiesh  for  am 
everlasting  covenant :  (token)"  vs.  13. 

Candour  must  confess  that  circumcision  was 
not  the  covenant,  it  was  only  a  token  of  it,  as 
though  God  should  say  ;  I  have  long  since  giv- 
e«  you  this  land  ;  I  have  called  you  from  your 


!0 

family ;  the  long  promised  seed  of  the  woman 
shall   come  through  you  ;  1   will  have  you  a 
separate  and  distinct  family  ;  you  shall  have  a 
mark  in  your  flesh  to  distinguish  you  from  all 
the  families  of  the  earth,  and  when  you  see  this 
mark,  you  shall  remember  that  the  unchange- 
able God,  has  honored  you  above  all  families. 
*'  In  thee  shall  all  families  of  the  eanh  be  bless- 
ed :"  Gen.  xii.  3.     This  to  be  sure  is  called  a 
covenant,  as  was  the  Horeb  law.       We    read 
Exo.  xxxiv.  28  :  u  And  he  was  tfyere  with  the 
Lord   forty  days    and  forty   nights  ;  and   he 
did  neither  eat  bread  nor  drink  water:  and 
he  wrote    upon   the  the   tables,   the   words  of 
the  covenant,  the  ten  commandments."   Ad 
Exo.  xxiv.   12  :   "  And   the  Lord    said  unto 
Moses,  come   up  to  me  into  the   mount  and 
be  there:    and  I  will  give  thee  tables  of  stone, 
and  a  law,  and  commandments  which  I  have 
written  :    that  thou  mayest  teach  them."     It 
is  evident  from  these  texts  that  the  law  of  God 
is  often  expressed  by  the  term  covenant ;  and 
more   generally  by  covenant,  than   by  law — 
Properly  speaking,  a  covenant  must  have  con- 
tracting parties,  and  there  is  not  the  very  least 
appearance  of  a  contract,  on  the  part  of  Abra- 
ham.    God  was  pleased  to  make  the   law   or 
covenant,  with  a  condition  on  the  part  ofA- 
braham  and  his  seed  :  and  they  were  bound 
to  obey,  or  forfeit  the  possession  promised.     If 
the  land,  the  seed,  and  the  seal  of  the  covenant 
are  viewed  as  we  have  stated  them,  down  goes 
your  superstructure.     But  if  you  will  maintain 
as  you  have  stated,  "  That  seed  is  Christ ;" 


II 

what  must  follow?  Consequences  that  you 
surely  cannot  admit.  Was  not  that  land  pro- 
mised to  Abraham,  and  his  seed,  for  an  ev- 
erlasting possession  ?  Have  they  got  posses- 
sion of  it?  Were  they  not  dispossessed  of  it  in 
the  second  generation  after  Abraham  ?  What 
reason,  sir,  can  you  give,  for  their  loss  of  that 
land  ?  Was  God  unfaithful  to  his  promise  ? 
God  forbid  we  should  say  so  !  Was  he  not 
able  to  prevent  the  famine  that  drove  Jacob  to 
Egypt  f  God  forbid  we  should  think  other- 
wise. What  then  was  the  cause  ?  "  Is  there 
not  a  cause  ?"  yes.  The  failure  of  the  seed  to 
comply  with  the  conditions  of  the  covenant. 
If  then  sir,  you  maintain  that  seed  is  Christ, 
you  charge  Him  with  being  less  perfect  than 
Abraham,  or  Solomon,  who  possessed  that 
land  ;  and  leave  us  in  uncertainty  to  know  why 
God  has  not  continued  them  in  their  possession, 
until  now  ;  but  whatever  opinion  you  may  en- 
tertain of  Christ,  we  are  confident  he  hath  per- 
formed all  his  engagements. 

It  is  to  be  lamented  that  such  labor  and 
pains  are  taken  to  cherish  a  rite,  non- impor- 
tant and  unscriptural :  but  that  every  sacrifice 
must  be  made  to  infant  sprinkling. 

The  principal  object  that  I  have  in  view,  is 
to  prove  the  everlasting  covenant  of  grace,  be- 
tween the  Father  and  the  Son,  which  you  deny. 
But  first, 

I  shall  prove  that  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion, was  not  the  covenant,  to  which  the  apostle 
refers  :  Gal.  iii.  17. — consequently  not  the 
covenant  of  grace,  and  that  it  only  had  respect 


12 

to  temporal  blessings,  wlui  this  exception,  that 
it  pointed  to  the  soffcrmgs  of  Christ. 

Secondly — I  shall  prove,  there  was  n  cove- 
nant  between  God  the  Father,  and  God  the 
Son  ;  that  it  was  everlasting,  and  ordered  in 
til  things  and  sure. 

First — The  covenant  of  circumcisjon  was 
net  the  everlasting  covenant  of  grace,  to  which 
the  apostle  refers,  which  he  says  was  confirmed 
before  of  God  in  Christ.     Gal.  iii.  17. 

After  our  common  father  had  violated  the 
law  of  God,  given  him  in  his  state  of  inno- 
cence, he  was  called  before  his  Judge  in  the 
garden  of  Eden,  and  confessed  his  disobedi- 
ence. God  was  then  pleased  to  give  him  faith 
in  the  seed  of  the  woman,  with  whom  he  had 
threatened  to  bruise  the  head  of  satan. 

Nothing  occurred  for  two  thousand  years, 
that  could  give  any  of  God's  believing  people 
just  ground  to  fix  upon  the  family,  the  favor- 
ed family,  from  whence  should  come  this  holy, 
this  much  desired  seed  ;  although  Adam,  Abel, 
Enoch,  and  all  the  godly  in  their  days,  and 
afterwards,  from  this  first  intimation  of  the 
seed  of  the  woman,  down  to  clearer  revelation 
of  it,  locked  for,  and  by  faith,  trusted  in  it,  for 
all  their  happiness ;  to  Abraham  was  that 
clearer  revelation  made,  and  on  him  was  the 
honor  conferred  of  being  designated  as  that 
individual  from  whom  the  promised  seed 
should  descend.  God  was  pleased  to  commu- 
nicate to  him  his  intention,  of  making  him  the 
honored  father  after  the  flesh  of  his  so.:  :  Gen. 
xii.  3.     "  In  thee  shall  ail  families  of  the  earth 


13 

be  blessed."  Through  your  loins  after  many- 
generations,  shall  be  born,  her,  who  shall  be 
the  Virgin  Mary,  who  shall  miraculously  con- 
ceive Him,  who  shall  be  the  long  looked  for 
seed.  This  communication  was  made  to  him 
1921  years  before  the  seed  was  born.  This 
revelation  was  what  the  apostle  Paul  calls, 
"  preaching  the  gospel  to  Abraham  ;"  and 
what  he  calls  a  confirmation  of  the  covenant 
that  was  made  before  of  God  in  Christ,  now 
confirmed  to  man  by  revelation  :"  Gal.  iii.  8. 
17 — and  this  was  the  seed  the  apostle  had  refer- 
ence to  in  the  18th  verse.  God  then  conferred 
with  Abraham  as  a  friend,  and  directed  him  to 
leave  his  family  and  kindred,  and  go  to  a  land 
that  he  would  shew  him.  Your  family  must 
not  be  intermixed  with  any  other  people  ;  they 
must  be  a  distinct  people,  known  from  all  fami- 
lies of  the  earth,  for  from  them  the  seed  ijs  to 
come.  A  register  of  them  shall  be  taken,  that 
the  genealogy  of  Christ  may  at  any  time  be 
traced.  It  is  evident  from  various  circumstan- 
ces, that  these  things  were  revealed  to  him  at 
this  time.  First — Abraham  obeyed,  and  went 
to  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  built  an  altar  unto 
the  Lord.  Secondly — He  returned  to  that 
land,  after  being  driven  away  by  the  famine  ; 
and  again  called  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord. 
Thirdly — He  complained  "  I  go  childless," 
after  he  had  returned  to  the  land  whither  God 
had  directed  him.  In  the  same  year,  God 
promised  to  give  that  land  to  his  seed;  (this 
must  be  his  children.)  Four  years  after,  he 
renews  his  promise,  "  For  all  the  land  which 

B 


14 

thou  scest,  to  thee  will  I  give  it,  and  to  tin' 
seed  forever :"  Gen.  xiii.  15.  Four  years 
more  piss  on,  and  the  Lord  appears  unto  him 
in  a  vision,  saying,  "  Fear  not  Abraham  :  I  am 
thy  shield,  and  thy  exceeding  great  reward. 
And  Abraham  said,  Lord  God,  what  wilt  thou 
give  mc,  seeing  I  go  childless,  and  the  steward 
of  my  house  is  this  Eliezer  of  Damascus : 
ancl  Abraham  said,  behold  to  me  thou  hast 
given  no  seed  ;  and  lo,  one  born  in  my  house 
is  mine  heir.  And  behold  the  word  of  the 
Lord  came  unto  him,  saying,  this  shall  not  be 
thine  heir,  but  he  that  shall  come  forth  out  of 
thine  own  bowels  shall  be  thine  heir.  And  he 
brought  him  forth  abroad,  and  said,  look  now 
toward  Heaven,  and  tell  the  stars,  if  thou  be 
able  to  number  them  :  and  he  said  unto  him, 
so  shall  thy  seed  be.  And  he  believed  in  the 
Lord  ;  and  he  counted  it  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness :"  Gen.  xv.  1  to  6.  The  same  day  God 
told  Abraham  of  the  affliction  of  his  seed  for 
four  hundred  years,  and  of  their  deliverance. 
"  In  that  same  day  the  Lord  made  a  covenant 
with  Abraham,  saying,  unto  thy  seed  have  I 
given  this  land,  from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto 
the  great  river  the  river  Euphrates;"  v.  18: 
and  by  a  symbol  of  fire,  confirmed  the  grant. 
Fifteen  years  after,  when  Abraham  was  nine- 
ty years  old  and  nine,  the  Lord  appeared  to 
Abraham,  and  said  unto  him,  "  I  am  the  Al- 
mighty God;  walk  before  mc,  and  be  thou 
perfect,"  (in  the  margin,  upright  or  sincere) 
"•  and  I  will  make  my  covenant  between  me 
*ud  thee  :"  Gen.  xvii.  1.  2.     Will  you  venture 


15 

to  say,  this  is  not  intended  as  a  confirmation,  or 
renewal  of  the  same  covenant  made  fifteen 
years  before  ?  If  you  will,  it  rests  with  you  to 
show  how  many  covenants  were  made  with 
Abraham  ;  what  was  promised  in  them,  and 
what  were  their  seals.  Twenty- four  years 
before  circumcision  was  commanded,  and 
when  Abraham  had  first  got  possession  of  the 
land  of  Canaan,  God  promised  it  to  him  and 
his  seed,  (not  Christ)  but  that  seed  through 
which  Christ  should  come  ;  and  now  confirms 
it  by  promise,  and  by  token,  even  circumci- 
sion ;  which  is  the  most  that  can  fairly,  and 
scripturally  be  made  of  it,  in  allusion  to  the 
covenant. 

In  page  8th  we  have  your  third  declaration  : 
"  Which  is  to  prove,  that  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  was  the  covenant  of  grace,  by  its 
confirmation."  Was  it  ever  confirmed  ?  It 
was  :  for  Paul  tells  us,  "  that  the  covenant 
that  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ, 
the  law  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should 
make  the  promises  of  none  effect."  We  grant 
that  those  are  the  words  of  Paul ;  but,  sir,  how 
do  you  prove  your  covenant  by  them  ?  Does 
Paul  say,  the  law  which  was  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it 
should  make  the  covenant  of  circumcision  of 
none  effect  ?  No,  he  does  not  ;  and  as  you 
have  pressed  the  apostle  into  your  service,  it 
rests  with  you  to  prove,  that  the  promises  he 
had  in  view,  were  embraced  in  the  covenant  of 
circumcision.     It  is  very  easy  to  quote  scrip- 


ture,  but  when  you  attempt  it  in  controverted 
points,  you  ought  to  bring  such  portions  of  it  as 
will  clearly  apply  to  your  subject,  or  you  may 
expect  that  your  errors  will  be  exposed.  Paul 
tells  us  "  that  the  covenant  that  was  confirmed 
before  of  God,"  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  before  the  giving  of  the  Iioreb  law,  or 
the  law  of  ten  commands  at  Sinai.  Now  sir, 
I  say  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was 
only  four  hundred  and  six  years  before  the 
giving  of  that  law,  which  I  shall  by  and  by  de- 
monstrate. You  run  too  fast,  you  make  the 
apostle  confirm  your  covenant,  twenty-four 
years  before  it  is  sealed.  How  will  you  ex- 
tricate yourself?  you  have  fixed  decidedly,  on 
the  covenant  of  circumcision,  as  your  batter- 
ing ram,  to  beat  down  the  everlasting  covenant 
of  grace,  to  destroy  the  baptism  of  John,  and  to 
make  the  baptists  unchurch  themselves.  But 
alas!  the  ground  on  which  you  place  it,  fails,  and 
therefore  its  force  is  destroyed. 

We  will  return  to  page  5 — "  Was  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  which  circumcision  sealed,  the 
covenant  of  grace  ?"  It  was,  as  appears  by  the 
three  declarations  contained  in  the  covenant. ' 
"  1.  The  seed  of  the  covenant — 2.  The  faith  of 
the  covenant — 3.  The  confirmation  of  the 
covenant ;  either  of  which  we  think  sufficient  to 
establish  the  existence  of  the  covenant."  Con- 
sequently if  you  loose  them  all,  and  it  should  be 
made  to  appear,  that  you  cannot  establish  either 
of  them  ;  you  give  up  your  covenant,  and  all 
you  have  built  upon  it. 

To  borrow  from  your  book — "  But  as  great 


17 

opposition  has  been  made,  and  many  sophisti- 
cal arguments  have  been  advanced,  as  a  mighty 
bulwark  against  us,  in  this  point ;  it  become1} 
necessary  to  attend  particularly  to  each  decla- 
ration. "  This  we  will  now  do — You  say  page 
5th,  "  Declaration  the  first — The  seed  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  proves  it  to  have  been 
the  covenant  of  grace,  because  that  seed  was 
Christ,  as  appeal's  in  Gal.  in.  8  and  16  ;  where 
Paul  says  '"  The  scripture  foreseeing  that  God 
would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith  preach- 
ed before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying, 
in  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed  ;"  and  in 
verse  16th  he  shews  that  seed  was  Christ," 
Now  sir,  will  you  a3  a  preacher  of  the  gospel, 
with  your  bible  in  your  hand,  venture  to  say, 
that  the  gospel  preached  to  Abraham,  and  the 
promise  that  in  his  seed  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  should  be  blessed,  which  seed  the  apos- 
tle declares  to  be  Christ,  took  place  at  the 
time  that  God  commanded  him  to  circumcise 
himself  and  male  posterity  :  do  you  not  on  the 
contrary  know  that  the  gospel  preached  to 
Abraham,  and  the  promise  made  to  him  took 
place  twenty-four  years  before  that  event, 
when  God  commanded  him  to  leave  his  fami- 
ly ?  Gen.  xii,  1.  2.3;  "  Now  the  Lord  had 
said  unto  Abraham,  get  thee  out  of  thy  country, 
and  from  thy  kindred,,  and  from  thy  father's 
house,  unto  a  Umd  that  I  will  shew  thee  ;  and 
I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation,  and  I  v>{\l 
bless  thee,  and  make  thy  name  great ;  and  thou 
shalt  be  a  blessing.  And  I  will  bless  them  that 
bless  thee,  and  curse  him  that  curse  th  thee; 

B3 


18 

* 
and  in  thee  shall  all  families  of  the  earth  be 
blessed  :"  v.  4.  And  Abraham  was  seventy. 
five  years  old  when  he  departed  out  of  Haran," 
the  time  when  this  gospel  was  preached  to 
Abraham,  to  which  the  apostle  refers  in  Gal. 
iii.  8,  which  he  quotes  from  Gen.  xii.  3.  And 
when  he  speaks  of  the  promises  made  to  Abra- 
ham, in  16th  verse,  where  he  saith,  "  And  to 
thy  seed  which  is  Christ ;"  Abraham  was  seven- 
ty-five years  old.  There  therefore  cannot  be 
the  smallest  reason  to  believe  that  the  land  of 
Canaan  was  the  object  of  this  promise,  for  the 
land  was  confirmed  to  his  family,  and  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth  could  not,  and  were  not  bles- 
sed by  it.  The  blessing  proceeded  from  God's 
making  his  name  great,  and  making  him  a 
blessing.  How  ?  By  making  him  the  honour- 
ed father  after  the  flesh,  of  the  seed  of  the  wo- 
man, in  which  way  alone  could  the  families  of 
the  earth  be  blessed  in  him.  The  families  of 
the  earth  could  derive  no  benefit  from  circum- 
cision, for  they  did  not  generally  receive  it. 
Those  only  who  belonged  to  Abraham's  family. 
or  were  bought  with'  his  money,  submitted  to 
that  rite.  Those  who  were  not  thus  entitled 
to  it,  but  received  it,  lost  their  lives — witness 
the  Shechemites.  It  is  therefore  evident  that 
the  apostle  had  far  greater  things  in  view,  in 
his  argument  to  the  Galatians,  than  circum- 
cision. When  God  commanded  Abraham  to 
circumcise  himself,  and  male  family,  he  was 
ninety- nine  years  old.  This  we  prove  :  Gen. 
X'Vli.  1.  Thus  we  make  it  appear  that  the 
promise  was  twenty -four  years  before  circura- 


\9 

eision  ;  and  if  we  add  these  twenty-four  to  the 
four  hundred  and  six  years,  the  difference  of 
time  from  the  promises  made  him  in  Gen.  xii. 
3.  to  the  giving  of  the  law,  the  period  of 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years  will  be  fully  and 
clearly  made  out,  which  is  the  term  of  time 
the  apostle  mentions,  particularly  between  the 
giving  of  the  law  and  the  promises,  in  the  pas- 
sage above  quoted.  How,  sir,  could  you  have 
the  face  to  press  that  passage  to  your  assis- 
tance, which  will  not  answer  your  purpose  by 
twenty-four  years,  and  venture  to  say  Christ 
was  the  seed  of  the  covenant,  and  force  the 
apostle  to  prove  what  he  »ever  had  an  idea  of. 
Besides,  when  the  apostle  elucidates  the  pas- 
sage from  Moses,  respecting  the  blessing  of 
the  nations  through  Abraham,  he  says,  v.  8 — 
"  And  the  scripture  foreseeing  that  God  would 
justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  (not  justify 
them  through,  or  by  Abraham)  preached  be- 
fore the  gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  "  in 
thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed,"  that  is,  in 
Christ,  who  is  in  thee,  after  the  flesh.  These 
words  the  apostle  quotes  from  Gen.  xii.  3.  and 
not  from  any  part  of  the  17th  chapter  :  and  again 
the  apostle  doth  not  say  they  are  to  be  blessed 
in  Abraham,  or  by  him,  but  with  him  :  v.  9. 
*'  So  then  they  which  be  of  faith  are  blessed 
with  faithful  Abraham."  They  have  as  great 
a  claim  to  Christ  and  his  merits  as  Abraham, 
had,  and  that,  not  from  any  natural  alliance  to 
hint,  but  through  their  faith  in  Christ.  And 
it  was  no  greater  spiritual  blessing  to  Abraham, 
or  to  any  of  his  posterity,  that  Christ  came 


20 

through  him,  than  it  was  or  will  be,  to  any 
individual  believer  whatever.  You  have  fail- 
ed Mr,  in  proving  Chriet  the  seed  of  the  cove- 
nant;  Moses  and  Paul,  being  the  judges  :  be- 
side it  appeal^  to  me  perfect  nonsense,  to 
speak  of  thtr  seed  of  the  covenant.  You  ad- 
mit that  a  covenant  is  a  contract  ;  how  does 
it  yield  seed  ?  Is  it  by  ordinary,  or  extraordi- 
nary generation  ? 

In  page  6th  we  have  your  second  declara- 
tion. M  This  covenant  is  again  proved  to  have 
been  the  covenant  of  grace,  from  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith  couched  in  it." 

You  attempt  to  prove  your  second  declara- 
tion by  inquiring  how  Abraham  was  justified, 
as  if  he  were  justified  in  any  singular  way,  or 
as  if  there  were  any  way  by  which  any  believer 
could  be  justified  in  his  conscience,  but  by 
faith.  Abraham  being  justified  by  faith,  does 
not  prove  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  to  be 
the  everlasting  covenant  of  grace  ;  any  more 
than  the  apostle  Paul's  justification  by  faith, 
does.  The  inquiry  is,  was  Abraham  justi- 
fied by  circumcision  or  by  faith  ?  If  circumci- 
sion be  the  covenant  of  grace,  Abraham  must 
be  justified  by  it  :  now  the  scripture  declares 
that  it  is  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  alone  that  sin- 
ners stand  justified  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  as 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  covenant  head,  and  not  A- 
braham,  (as  we  shall  prove;)  it  surely  rests 
with  you  (to  carry  your  point)  to  prove  Abra- 
ham justified  by  circumeision,  or  at  least,  by 
the  faith  he  had  in  that  transaction.  If  you  do 
not,  you  fail;  and  your  attempt  will  be  found  to 
involve  in  it  a  perversion  of  scripture,  to  apply 


21 

it  where  it  lias  only  a  forced  allusion  ;  and 
where  it  is  evident  the  inspired  writer  never  in- 
tended it  should  be  applied. 

But  sir,  what  was  it  that  Abraham  believed, 
when  the  apostle  says  his  belief  was  counted  to 
him  for  righteousness  ?  Was  it  that  he  and  his 
seed  should  have  the  land  of  Canaan  ?  Was  it 
that  circumcision  should  be  a  blessing  to  him, 
and  family  ?  Was  it  any  thing  pertaining  to  cir- 
cumcision ?  Answer^  sir,  in  the  fear  of  God : 
was  not  his  belief  counted  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness, fifteen  years  before  circumcision  had  an 
existence  ;  and  at  the  time  when  the  promise 
was  made  to  him  that  his  seed  should  be  as  the 
stars  of  Heaven  ?  Gen.  xv.  5,  6.  "  Look 
now  toward  Heaven,  and  tell  the  stars,  if  thou 
be  able  to  number  them  ;  and  he  said  unto  him 
so  shall  thy  seed  be  :  and  he  believed  in  the 
Lord  and  he  counted  it  to  him  for  righte- 
ousness." Surely  you  will  not  say  that  the 
seed  here  promised  was  Christ,  who  were  to 
be  as  numberless  as  the  stars  of  Heaven.  It 
was  this  faith  in  the  promise  of  God  now  made 
that  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness ; 
which  Paul  quotes  both  in  Rom.  iv.  3.  and 
Gal.  iii.  6.  And  this  you  call  the  faith  of  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  when  that  covenant 
was  not  made  with  Abraham  until  fifteen  years 
after  he  had  the  belief,  and  after  it  was  counted 
to  him  for  righteousness.  How,  sir,  can  vou 
have  the  face  to  maintain  such  absurdities  ?  I 
think  by  an  appeal  to  Moses  and  Paul,  they  will 
again  decide  against  you,  and  you  have  lost 
your  second  battering  ram. 


<22 


In  papre  8th  we  have  your  third  declaration — 
•'  Which  is  to  prove  that  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant, was  the  covenant  of  grace,  by  its  confir- 
mation. Was  it  ever  confirmed  ?  It  was. 
For  Paul  tells  US  that  the  covenant  that  was 
confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law, 
(hat  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after, 
cannot  disannul, that  it  should  make  the  promi- 
ses of  none  effect."  To  this  we  answer  in  the 
Words  of  Doctor  Baldwin. 

"  Here  are  several  things  worthy  of  consid- 
eration.—  1st.  This  covenant  was  confirm- 
ed before  of  God  in  Christ.  It  consequently 
stood  independent  of  the  obedience  either  of  A- 
braham  or  his  posterity. 

"  2d.  This  covenant,  if  confirmed  in  Christ, 
could  not  be  broken  or  disannulled.  There 
could  in  the  nature  of  things  be  no  failure. 
Even  a  suspicion  of  this  kind,  Mould  be  de- 
rogatory to  the  honor  and  veracity  of  Christ. 

"  3d.  This  promise,  which  is  the  same  re- 
ferred to  in  the  29th  verse,  the  apostle  informs 
us  was  thus  made  and  confirmed,  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  before  the  giving  of  the 
law.  This  will  forever  distinguish  it  from  the 
promises  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision  ; 
for  this  was  instituted  only  four  hundred  and 
six  years  before  the  giving  of  the  law.  The 
covenant  in  the  17th  chapter  Gen.  was  in  the 
year  before  Christ  1897;  the  law  was  }  1897 
given  fourteen  hundied  and  ninety  one  >  1491 

years  before  the  same  era,  which  leave  ) . 

but  four  hundred  and  six  :         .  .       406 

But  the  promise,   quoted  by  the  apostle  from 


23 

Genesis  xii.  3.  which  was  made  to  Abraham 
twenty  four  years  before,  when  ha  was  in  art* 
circumcision,  exactly  compares  with  this  state- 
ment in  the  context,  of  four  hundred  and  thin. 
ty  years.  This  promise,  according  to  the 
bible  chronology,  was  made  to  Abraham  in 
the  year  before  Christ  1921,  the  law,  )  1921 
as  observed  above,  was  given  1491,  >  1491 
w  hich  makes  exac'Iv  the  time  speci-  )  — — 
fied  :..'....       430 

u  Here  the  matter  is  reduced  to  mathemati- 
cal certainty.  Any  person  who  will  take  the 
trouble  to  compare  the  dates  of  his  bible,  of 
the  12th  chapter  of  Gen.  and  the  20th  of  Ex- 
odus, referred  to  above,  will  feel  himself  com- 
pletely satisfied.  The  most  invincible  preju- 
dice will  find  it  difficult  to  resist  the  light  of 
demonstration. 

"  If  the  observations  which  have  now  been 
made  are  correct,  they  will  bring  us  unavoid- 
ably to  this  conclusion,  viz.  7  hat  Mr.  Wor- 
cester" (we  say  MA  Russel)  "  has  totally  mis- 
taken the  promise  in  his  text,  and  reasoned 
from  one  to  which  the  apostle  had  no  imme- 
diate reference.  'Hence  the  whole  cf  his  la- 
boured superstructure  is  left  without  founda- 
tion. The  fate  of  such  a  building  may  be  seen 
in  the  close  of  the  sixth  chapter  of  Luke.  In 
order  to  set  aside  this  conclusion,  three  things 
must  be  fairly  proved. 

"  1st  That  the  apostle  throughout  this 
.chapter  did  actually  mean  the  promise  in  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  although  he  has  not 
mentioned  a  single  passage  contained  in  it  j 


24 

but  expressly  quoted  one  clearly  distinguish- 
ed by  'he  timt  of  its  being  delivered,  and  al- 
so by  the  terms  and  import  of  the  promise  it- 
self. 

"  2d.  It  must  be  proved,  that  the  covenant 
of  circumcision  was  430  years  before  the  giv- 
ing of  the  law.  notwithstanding  scripture  chro- 
nology places  it  but  four  hundred  and  six." 

"  3d.  That  the  seed  of  Ahraham,  mentioned 
in  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  and  the  seed 
in  whom  all  the  families  of  the  earth  should  be 
blessed,  Mere  the  same  ;  or  in  other  words, 
that  the  seed  of  Abraham,  expressed  in  that 
covenant,  meant  Christ ;  for  the  apostle  has 
expressly  told  us  in  the  context,  that  he  was 
the  person  to  whom'  the  promise,  from  which 
he  was  then  reasoning,  exclusively  referred. 
Until  these  are  fairly  proved,  we  shall  insist 
upon  the  conclusion  above  stated."* 

In  the  same  page  you  say — "  But  was  this 
covenant  which  God  confirmed  in  Christ,  the 
Abrahamic  covenant?  It  vr.s,  because  in  verse 
15th  it  is  written ;  though  it  be  but  a  man's 
covenant,  yet  if  it  be  confirmed,  no  man  dis- 
annulled or  addeth  thereto." 

To  which  I  will  answer  nearly  in  the  words 
ofDr  Doddridge  and  Mr.  John  Wesley.  "  I 
have  been  speaking,  brethren,  of  the  blessings 
of  Abraham,  and  have  shewn  that  according 
to  the  promises  of  God,  all  his  believing  seed 
whether  they  be,  or  be  not  circumcised,  must 
be  entitled  to  many  very  valuable  privileges: 
And  herein  I  speak   after  the  manner  of  men, 

•  Doctor  Baldwin  ui  answer  to  Mr.  Worcester. 


S5 

and  reason  on  the  principles  of  common  equi- 
ty, according  to  what  is  the  allowed  rule  of" all 
human  compact :  for  though  it  be  but  the  cov- 
enant of  a  man  with  his  fellow  creature,  yet  if 
it  be  once  legally  confirmed  by  mutual  promise 
and  seal,  no  honest  man  concerned  aftt  rwards, 
cancelleth  what  was  agreed  to  by  it,  or  addeth 
any  thins:  to  it  which  should  alter  the  terms 
of  it,  without  the  consent  of  the  other  stipula- 
ting party."  Here  wre  see  by  the  Doctor  and 
Mr.  Wesley  that  it  was  not  man's  covenant, 
but  a  comparison  the  apostle  was  making  to  shew 
the  unchangeableness  of  the  covenant  confirm- 
ed before  of  God  in  Christ.  It  could  not  be 
altered  but  by  the  mutual  consent  of  the  par- 
ties, which  so  far  from  strengthening  your 
cause,  evidently  weakens  it.*  In  the  same 
page  you  add,  "  How  did  God  in  Christ  con- 
firm it  ?  Paul  tells  us  in  Romans  xv.  8. 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  minister  of  the  circum- 
cision for  the  truth  of  God,  to  confirm  the 
promises  made  unto  the  fathers."  This  is  to 
be  sure  a  grand  discovery,  "  a  minister  of 
the  circumcision."  Do  you  mean  he  was  a 
minister  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision  ?  or 
do  you  mean  (as  the  apostle  intends  us  to  un- 
derstand him)  that  he  was  a  minister  under 
the  new  testament  dispensation  to  the  Jeivs  ? 
who  you  cannot  deny,  are  called  the  circum- 
cision, to  distinguish  them  from  the  gentile 
nations,    who  are  called  the  uncircumcision. 

*  I  would  observe  that  God  calls  it  liis  covenant  seven  times, 
ar.d  Mr.  R.  wishes  to  make  his  readers  thiijk  it  was  not  God's, 
hut  man's. 

C 


2G 

You  must  intend,  the  one  or  the  other,  or  we 
cannot  comprehend  your  reasoning.  If  you 
mean  the  first,  then  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision had  two  ministers,  for  you  tell  us  page 
£0.  "  Now  from  the  period  that  God  cha:  ged 
his  name  to  Abraham,  he  became  a  minister 
of  the  circumcision  under  God."  We  are  at 
a  loss  to  find  out  by  your  book,  which  is  the 
greatest,  .Abraham,  or  Christ.  You  say 
Christ  is  a  minister  of  the  circumcision,  (you 
must  mean  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision, 
or  it  would  answer  you  no  purpose  ;)  but  you 
have  not  informed  us  of  any  act  he  did  to  make 
it  appear  he  was  a  minister  in  the  way  you 
would  have  your  readers  consider  him.  We 
grant  you  have  proved  Abraham  a  minister  of 
the  covenant  of  circumcision,  for  he  acted 
just  as  God  commanded  him.  I  conceive 
there  is  a  material  difference  in  being  a  minis- 
ter of  the  circumcision,  and  a  minister  of  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  ;  and  it  is  evident 
from  your  arguments,  that  you  wished  your 
readers  to  consider  Christ  a  minister  of  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  ;  a  very  honorable 
office  indeed,  sir,  to  Abraham  ;  but  I  should 
think  a  degrading  one  to  the  son  of  God.  But 
sir,  your  work  is  all  of  a  piece,  you  wish  your 
readers  to  look  to  Abraham  as  their  covenant 
head,  to  the  rejection  of  Him,  whom  God 
hath  honored  more  than  all  the  children  of 
men,  and  appointed  the  covenant  head  of  his 
people. 

Our  Lord  himself  explains  to  us,  in  what 
$ense  he  is  a  minister  of  the  circumcision  : 


27 

Matt.  xv.  24.  "  But  he  answered  and  said, 
I  am  not  sent,  but  unto  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
house  of  Israel :  Matt.  x.  5.  6.  Go  not  into 
the  way  of  the  gentiles  ;  and  into  any  city  of 
the  Samaritans,  enter  ye  not.  But  go  ye  ra- 
ther to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel." 
The  Jews  were  the  circumcision,  and  Christ 
was  their  minister,  sent,  to  his. own  nation.  In 
addition  to  the  above,  we  read  that  Paul  and 
Barnabas  waxed  bold  and  said  it  was  necessa- 
ry that  the  word  of  God  should  first  have  been 
spoken  unto  you(fhe  Jews.)  Why  was  it  neces- 
sary ?  Because  God  had  promised  him  (Christ) 
to  the  fathers,  and  his  word  must  be  fulfilled  : 
Deut.  xviii.  18.  '*  I  will  raise  them  up  a 
prophet  from  among  their  brethren  like  unto 
thee,  and  will  put  my  words  in  his  mouth, 
and  he  shall  speak  unto  them  all  that  I  com- 
mand him."  This  sir,  is  the  truth  of  God, 
and  here  is  one  of  many  of  the  promises  made 
unto  the  fathers,  which  Paul  had  in  view  when 
he  exhorted  the  Romanj,  to  "  bear  the  infir- 
mities of  the  weak,"  and  to  act  after  the  ex- 
ample of  Christ ;  to  be  of  one  mind,  and  glo- 
rify God ;  and  "  receive  one  another,  as 
Christ  also  received  us,  to  the  glory  of  God." 
"  Now  I  say  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  minister 
of  the  circumcision  for  the  truth  of  God,  to 
confirm  the  promises  made  unto  the  fathers." 
God  had  promised  the  fathers  that  he  would 
give  them  a  prophet,  and  his  word  cannot  fail. 
This  the  apostle  Peter  had  in  view  in  Acts 
iii.  22-  26.  "  Unto  you  first."  Whom? 
You,  Jews,  the  circumcision.     "  God  having 


as 

raised  up  his  son  Jesus,  sent  him  to  bless  you, 
in  turning  every  one  of  you  from  his  iniqui- 
ties." This  is  evidently  what  the  apostle 
Paul  means  by  his  being  a  minister  of  the  cir- 
cumcision. Neither  do  I  believe,  you  would 
deny  it.  Peter  is  said  to  be  an  apostle  of  the 
circumcision :  Gal.  ii.  7.  8.  "  When  they 
saw  that  the  gospel  of  the  uncircumcision  was 
committed  to  me,  as  the  gospel  of  the  circum- 
cision was  unto  Peter.  (For  he  that  wrought 
effectually  in  Peter  to  the  apostleship  of  the 
circumcision ;  the  same  was  mighty  in  me 
toward  the  gentiles.)  And  when  James,  Ce- 
phas, and  John,  who  seemed  to  be  pillars,  per- 
ceived the  grace  that  was  given  unto  me,  they 
gave  to  rne  and  Barnabas  the  right  hands  of 
fellowship  ;  that  we  should  go  unto  the  heath- 
en, and  they  unto  the  circumcision."  Here 
we  see  clearly  what  the  apostle  means  by  the 
circumcision  ;  not  the  cutting  of  the  flesh ;  but 
the  Jewish  nation.  For  he  has  clearly  distin- 
guished them  by  circumcision,  uncircumci- 
sion, and  heathen  ;  and  it  is  undeniably  thus 
he  would  have  the  Romans  and  us  to  under- 
stand him.  And  it  completely  destroys  the 
last  of  your  declarations  :  therefore,  not  one 
of  your  three  declarations  has  sufficient  weight 
to  bear  "  the  least  breeze  of  truth."  It  is, 
therefore  concluded  you  have  lost  each  of  your 
arguments,  drawn  from  the  Abrahamic  cove* 
nant,  in  favor  of  your  design ;  and  as  your 
whole  fabric  was  built  thereon,  the  whole 
tumbles  down  together. 

I  proceed  now  to  shew  that  the  covenant  of 


2$ 

circumcision,  cannot  be  the  covenant  of  grace ; 
and  that  the  seed  therein  mentioned,  cannot 
be  Christ ;  for  several  reasons. 

First — The  covenant  of  circumcision,  has 
every  appearance  of  being  conditional.  God 
promised  Abraham  to  be  his  God,  and  the 
God  of  his  seed,  and  commanded  him  to  cir- 
cumcise himself  and  his  male  household.  He 
also  promised  him  the  land  of  Canaan  for  an 
everlasting  possession  to  him  and  his  seed  after 
him,  forever.  It  was  to  be  theirs,  in  their  gen- 
erations ;  and  God's  covenant  was  to  be  in 
their  flesh  fur  an  everlasting  covenant.  We 
must  conclude  it  was  conditional,  and  that 
Christ  was  not  the  seed  therein  promised  from 
the  events  that  followed.  They  lost  their  pos*- 
session  in  the  second  generation  after  Abraham  : 
"  And  they  took  their  cattle,  and  their  goods 
which  they  had  gotten  in  the  land  of  Canaan, 
and  came  into  Egypt,  Jacob,  and  all  his  seed 
with  him  :"  Gen.  xlv"i.  6.  1  think  there 
cannot  be  a  doubt  that  the  seed  here,  and  that 
in  the  17th  chapter  are  the  same.  A  question 
will  naturally  occur,  why  was  it  that  the  posteri- 
ty of  Abraham  lost  possession  of  the  promised 
land  ?  God,  who  had  promised  them  an  ever- 
lasting possession  of  it,  could  not  forfeit  his 
word.  Answer,  although  there  was  no  condi- 
tion particularly  stipulated,  it  must  have  been 
upon  those  terms  that  God  made  his  covenant 
with  Abraham  ;  for  if  he  had  promised  them  an 
everlasting  possession  without  condition,  they 
never  would  have  lost  the  possession.  It  must 
then  have  been  upon  condition  of  their  obedi- 
,c  3 


30 

ence,  to  whatever  God  had  commanded ; 
whether  implied,  or  expressed.  Could  the 
seed  that  is  expressed  in  that  covenant  be 
Christ  ?  No.  If  we  admit  that  seed  to  be  Christ, 
we  charge  him  with  violating  the  covenant  of 
God.  Now  it  is  impossible,  from  the  nature 
of  God,  that  he  should  fail  to  comply  with 
his  promise  ;  and  by  asserting  that  the  seed 
was  Christ,  we  implicate  the  father,  or  the  son. 
And  what  is  still  worse,  if  we  say  that  seed 
was  Christ,  we  charge  God  in  positive  terms 
with  falsehood,  for  Christ  said  "  The  foxes 
have  holes,  and  the  birds  of  the  air  have 
r.ests,  but  the  son  of  man  hath  not  where  to 
lay  his  head."  Notwithstanding  that  seed  had 
the  promise  of  an  everlasting  possession. 

Secondly — The  mark  in  the  flesh  has  ceas- 
ed, for  although  the  natural  descendants  of 
Abraham  may,  until  this  day,  continue  the 
practice  of  circumcision  ;  it  is  evident,  they 
have  now  no  divine  authority  for  that  rite. 
As  long  as  God  had  a  purpose  to  answer  with 
them(which  was  until  the  promised  seed  should 
come)  they  were  to  keep  themselves  separate 
from  other  nations,  and  were  to  keep  that  seal 
or  mark,  as  a  distinction  of  their  families  in  their 
generations.  But  that  seal  or  mark  exhibited 
something  more,  it  pointed  to  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  very  particularly,  and  a  prophet  hav- 
ing this  in  view  said,  "Messiah  shall  be  cut  oft', 
but  not  for  himself. "  If  then  it  was  a  mark 
of  distinction  of  that  people  until  Christ  should 
suffer  :  as  soon  as  he  suffered,  the  mark  was 
of  no  farther  use  ;  and  if  it  was  typical  of  his 
suffering  (as  it  assuredly   was)  he  could  not 


31 

have  been  the  seed,  for  he  was  that,  which 
the  mark  of  the  seed  pointed  at ;  and  as  circum- 
cision was  a  seal  or  token  of  that  covenant,  and 
was  to  continue  as  long  as  the  covenant  did  ; 
the  token  or  seal  being  taken  away  as  soon  as 
Christ  to  whom  it  pointed  suffered,  proves  that 
it  had  a  fixed  period  ;  and  that  the  covenant  to 
which  that  mark  was  attached  was  not  ever- 
lasting. 

Thirdly — A  covenant  is  a  transaction  be- 
tween parties,  who  possess  the  power  of  per- 
forming their  respective  stipulations.  Now 
as  neither  Abraham  nor  his  seed  had  the-pow- 
er  of  holding  possession  of  the  promised  land, 
it  evidently  follows  that  neither  he  nor  they 
had  the  ability  to  perform  such  high  duties  as 
were  required  of  Him,  who  undertook  thecause 
of  helpless  man.  Therefore  the  covenant  of 
grace  could  not  be  made  with  Abraham  or  any 
of  his  natural  seed  for  want  of  the  ability  requi- 
site in  its  head. 

Again,  the  very  duties  enjoined  on  the  seed 
mentioned  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision, 
prove  that  it  is  not  the  covenant  of  grace  ;  for 
no  duty  is  enjoined  on  them  but  circumcision. 
The  duty  to  walk  perfect  before  God  was  en- 
joined on  Abraham  exclusively  ;  and  never  in 
the  chapter  containing  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cison  required  of  his  seed.  The  declaration 
of  Jehovah  that  "  He  will  be  their  God," 
alters  not  the  case.  TtnVhe  -might  be,  and 
would  have  been,  in  the  way  he  was  their 
God,  had  he  never  commanded  circumcision. 
If  we  say  he  was  their  God,  because  they  cir. 


«?0 


fumciscd  themselves,  and  their  families;  boast- 
ing is  not  excluded.  But  he  was  their  God 
only  in  a  particular  point  of  \  k  w,  and  not  a 
God  of  their  salvation,  neither  did  his  promise 
to  be  their  God  extend  so  far  ;  for  but  a  rem- 
nant of  them  were  saved.  Now  if  we  say  that 
he  promised  to  be  their  God  in  the  highest 
sense,  that  is,  the  God  of  their  salvation,  we 
charge  him  with  a  breach  of  his  word,  or  we 
declare  the  whole  nation  of  Israel  were  saved, 
which  is  contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
scriptures. 

Once  more  :  If  we  attend  to  the  duties,  and 
qualifications  of  that  seed,  who  was  to  be  the 
head  of  the  covenant  of  CTace,  we  shall  find 
that  the  seed  spoken  of  in  the  17th  chapter, 
were  not  capable  of  performing  the  first,  or  ac- 
quiring the  last.  Psa.  Lxxxix.  28.  '*  My  mercy 
will  I  keep  for  him  forevermore  ;  and  my  cove- 
nant shall  stand  fast  with  him  :  29.  His  seed 
also  will  I  make  to  endure  forever,  and  his 
throne  as  the  days  of  heaven  :  27.  Also  I 
will  make  him  my  first  born  higher  than  the 
kings  of  the  earth  :"  Isa.  XLii.  6.  "  I  the 
Lord  have  called  thee  in  righteousness,  and 
will  hold  thine  hand,  and  will  keep  thee,  and 
give  thee  for  a  covenant  of  the  people,  for  a 
light  of  the  geutiles  :"  xl'ix.  8.  9.  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord,  in  an  acceptable  time  have  I 
heard  thee,  and  in  a  day  of  salvation  have  I 
helped  thee ;  and  I  will  preserve  thee,  and 
give  thee  for  a  covenant  of  the  people,  to  es- 
tablish the  earth,  to  cause  to  inherit  the  deso- 
late heritages ;   that  thou  niayest  say  to  the 


33 

prisoners,  go  forth  ;  to  them  that  are  in  dark- 
ness, shew  yourselves ;  they  shall  feed  in  the 
ways,  and  their  pastures  shall  be  in  high  pla- 
ces "  No  man  of  common  sense  will  say  that 
these  qualifications,  and  duties  could  be  ac- 
quired and  performed  by  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
spoken  of  in  the  17th  chap.  Gen.  for  they 
could  not  keep  in  their  own  strength,  posses- 
sion of  the  land  of  Canaan. 

The  covenant  of  circumcision  had  respect 
to  temporal  blessings  principally.  As  we  have 
already  shown,  the  land  of  Canaan,  was  all  the 
promise  made  to  the  seed  of  Abraham  in  the 
17th  of  Gen.  containing  an  account  of  the 
covenant  of  circumcision.  In  the  life  of  Ja- 
cob, Abraham's  seed  lost  possession  of  that 
land,  for  the  violation  of  the  covenant.  God 
was  not  bound  to  give  them  the  possession 
again  :  but  for  the  accomplishment  of  his  pur- 
pose in  keeping  them  a  distinct  people,  until 
the  seed  promised  in  the  12th  chap,  of  Gen. 
should  come,  he  gave  them  again  the  pos- 
session of  it.  This  is  clearly  intimated,  when 
he  says  "  Because  he  loved  thy  Fathers, 
(Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,)  therefore  he 
chose  their  seed  after  them,  and  brought  thee 
out  in  his  sight  with  his  mighty  power  out  of 
Egypt :"  Deut.  iv.  37.  And  in  the  40th  verse, 
he  promises  them  and  their  children  length  of 
days,  if  they  obeyed  him.  It  is  certainly  true, 
and  important  to  observe,  that  all  the  blessings 
they  received  as  a  nation  had  respect  to  Christ, 
Such  as  individuals  had  by  the  grace  of  God, 
and  faith  in  the  promised  seed,  were  peculiar 


34 

to  themselves,  being  the  special  gift  of  God. 
But  as  a  nation,  or  family,  the  promises  made 
to  them  were  temporal :  Exo.  xxiii.  22.  "But 
if  thou  shalt  indeed  obey  his  voice,  and  do  all 
that  I  speak  ;  then  I  will  be  an  enemy  to  thine 
enemies,  and  an  adversary  to  thine  adversaries  : 
23.  For  mine  angel  shall  po  before  thee  and 
bring  thee  in  unto  the  Antorites,  &c.  Deut. 
xxviii.  1.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  if  thou 
shalt  hearken  diligently  unto  the  voice  of  the 
Lord  thy  God,  to  observe  and  do  all  his  com- 
mandments, which  I  command  thee  this  day ; 
that  the  Lord  thy  God  will  set  thee  on  high, 
above  all  nations  of  the  earth  :  2.  And  all  these 
blessings  shall  come  on  thee,  and.  overtake 
thee,  if  thou  shalt  hearken  unto  the  voice  of 
the  Lord  thy  God  :  3.  Blessed  shalt  thou  be 
in  the  city,  and  blessed  shalt  thou  be  in  the 
field  :  4.  Blessed  shall  be  the  fruit  of  thy  bo- 
dy, and  the  fruit  of  thy  ground,  and  the  fruit 
of  thy  cattle,  the  increase  of  thy  kine,  and  the 
flocks  of  thy  sheep."  These  are  all  good 
temporal  blessings,  with  a  variety  of  others 
you  may  read  to  the  14th  verse,  and  the  cur- 
ses are  threatened  on  the  same  principle. 
"  But  it  shall  come  to  pass  if  thou  wilt  not 
hearken  unto  the  voice  of  the  Lord  thy  God,?  all 
these  curses  shall  come  upon  thee  :  "  Cursed 
shalt  thou  be  in  the  city ;  and  cursed  shalt 
thou  be  in  the  field,  thy  basket,  thy  store,  thy 
body,  the  fruit  of  thy  land,  the  increase  of  thy 
kine,  thy  sheep,  vexation  and  rebuke,  pesti- 
lence, consumption,  fever,  inflammation,  burn- 
ing, sword,  blasting  and  mildew  ;  and  thy  cue- 


35 

mies  shall  pursue  thee  until  thou  perish,  and 
the  heavens  that  is  over  thy  head  shall  be 
brass,and  the  earth  that  is  under  thee  shall  be 
iron:"  from  15  to  23d  verse.  It  is  hereby 
manifest  that  their  blessings,  and  curses  con- 
sidered in  a  national  point  of  view  were  tem- 
poral, and  not  spiritual.  The  best  baptist 
expositor,  (except  one)  that  ever  I  have  read 
puts  this  out  of  all  dispute,  for  he  tells  us  that 
all  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  that  dispensa- 
tion, "  Was  a  figure  for  the  time  then  present, 
in  which  were  offered  both  gifts  and  sacrifices, 
that  could  not  make  him  that  did  the  service 
perfect,  as  pertaining  to  the  conscience,  which, 
stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers 
washings,  and  carnal  ordinances  imposed  on 
them,  until  the  time  of  reformation  :"  Heb. 
^x.  9.  10 — that  is  until  the  introduction  of  the 
gospel  dispensation. 

We  apprehend  then,  as  a  nation,  they  were 
kept  together  ;  as  God's  nation  through  which 
the  holy  seed  was  to  come  ;  that  their  circum- 
cision was  a  mark  of  distinction,  and  typical 
of  the  anting  off  of  the  Messiah,  their  cove- 
nant head,  which  is  both  manifested  by  the 
part  cut,  and  the  blood  spilt ;  and  further  that 
God's  people  understood  it  so.  For  as  soon 
as  the  Messiah  was  cut  off,  as  was  thereby 
typified,  circumcision  ceased,  and  not  before. 
Now  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  was  command- 
ed by  God  for  his  people  to  observe,  and  those 
that  were  called  by  h^  grace,  walked  in  it,  not- 
withstanding they  had  \>een  circumcised.  This 
surely  proves,  that  the  o\;e  did  not  supercede 


the  other,  when  the  same  persons,  in  a  variety 
of  instances  received  both. 

Finally — From  the  arguments  of  the  apos- 
tle to  the  Romans,  and  Galatians,  it  is  absurd 
to  believe  that  he  had  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision in  view.  How  was  faith  reckoned  to 
Abraham  ?  When  he  was  in  circumcision,  or 
in  uncircumcision  ?  Not  in  circumcision,  (but 
fifteen  years  before  that  event)  when  in  un- 
circumcision. Here  then  we  find  both  when, 
and  how,  faith  was  reckoned  to  him  for  righte- 
ousness. There  is  not  the  least  hint  in  Gal.  iii. 
of  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  for  the  apostle 
argues  against  it,  in  the  whole  of  his  epistle 
to  them.  "  There  were  men  who  crept  in 
privily,  denying  the  Lord,  and  with  a  view  of 
bringing  the  church  of  Christ  into  bondage  :" 
Jude  iv.  "  For  there  are  certain  men  crept 
in  unawares,  who  were  before  of  old  ordained 
to  this  condemnation,  ungodly  men,  turning 
the  grace  of  God  into  lasciviousness  and  de- 
nying the  only  Lord  God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ :"  Part  Gal.  ii.  4.  "  And  that  because 
of  false  brethren  unawares  brought  in,  who 
came  in  privily  to  spy  out  our  liberty  which 
we  have  in  Christ  Jesus,  that  they  might  bring 
us  into  bondage."  What  is  the  bondage  the 
apostle  alluded  to?  He  tells  us  "  stand  fast 
therefore  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has 
made  us  free,  and  be  not  entangled  again  in 
the  yoke  of  bondage."  While  they  were  in 
the  Jewish  church,  they  were  under  the  bon- 
dage of  circumcision,  and  other  legal  ceremo- 
nies of  that  dispensation ;  but  now  saith  he 


37 

to  his  brethren,  you  are  in  the  gospel  church, 
and  enjoy  the  liberty  in  common  with  your 
brethren,  *'  which  we  have  in  Christ  Jesus, 
stand  fast  therein  "  Behold"  (take  particular 
notice)  "  I  Paul  say  unto  you  that  if  ye  be 
circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing  ;" 
for  by  being  "  circumcised"  you  in  effect  say 
you  are  of  the  law,  which  is  adhering  to  the 
dispensation,  "  which  decayeth  and  waxeth 
old,  and  is  ready  to  vanish  away  :"  Heb.  viii. 
13.  Who  that  desireth  to  teach  men  know- 
ledge, would  so  pervert  the  word  of  God,  and 
lead  them  from  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  ? 
Again,  look  at  the  reason  why  the  apostle  wrote 
this  epistle.  "  I  marvel,  that  ye  are  so  soon 
removed  from  him  that  called  you  into  the 
grace  of  Christ,  unto  another  gospel ;  which 
is  not  another,  but  there  be  some  that  trouble 
you,  and  would  pervert  the  gospel  of  Christ :" 
Gal.  i.  6.  7.  These  false  brethren  endeavored 
to  draw  the  affections  of  the  Galatians  from 
Paul,  that  they  might  make  a  gain  of  them,  and 
this  they  could  not  do  but  by  perverting  the 
scripture,  as  too  many  now  do,  to  make  a  gain 
of  godliness,  falsely  so  called.  Again  Gal.  hi. 
1.  "  O  foolish  Gallatians  who  hath  bewitch- 
ed you,"  are  ye  so  foolish  having  begun  in  the 
spirit,  are  ye  now  made  perfect  by  the  flesh  :" 
to  be  plain,  you  have  made  a  profession  of 
Jesus  Christ ;  you  have  been  baptized  into  his 
death,  you  have  put  on  Christ  by  profession. 
If  you  now  return  to  the  traditions  of  the  Jew- 
ish church,  you  in  effect  say,  "  except  we  be 
circumcised  after  the  manner  of  Moses,  we 


38 

cannot  be  saved."  You  arc  thereby  denying 
the  work  of  the  spirit,  and  expect  to  be  made 
perfect  by  the  flesh.  You  swerve  from  the 
truth,  "  before  whose  eyes  Jesus  Christ  has 
been  evidently"  (by  his  ordinances  of  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  supper)  "  set  forth  crucified 
among  you."  In  short  you  cannot  be  justified 
in  any  way  whatever  but  by  him.  This  is 
evidently  the  whole  of  his  intention.  He  asks 
them  if  he  yet  preached  circumcision;  if  he 
yet  adhered  to  the  Jews'  religion,  in  which  he 
had  been  born,  and  was  raised;  and  from  which 
God  by  his  grace  had  called  him,  revealing 
Christ  in  him :  why  he  yet  suffered  persecu- 
tion (from  the  Jews  ?)  If,  as  we  may  naturally 
suppose  him  to  say,  if  I  was  to  return  to  that 
old  way  of  living,  then  would  my  suffering  for 
the  cross  cease.  But,  saith  he,  if  we,  or  an 
angel  from  heaven  preach  any  other  (doctrine) 
unto  you,  than  justification  by  the  al!-atoning 
righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ ;  let  him  be  ac- 
cursed. The  sum  total  of  the  covenant  of 
circumcision,  is,  that  Abraham  shall  be  a  father 
of  many  nations  ;  kings  shall  come  out  of  him, 
God  would  be  a  God  unto  Abraham,  and  to 
his  seed  after  him.  All  the  land  of  Canaan 
should  be  given  them  for  an  everlasting  pos- 
session, that  is  until  the  promised  seed  shall 
come.  Sarah  should  have  a  son  indeed,  and 
God  would  establish  his  covenant  with  him  ; 
he  should  be  the  honored  father  of  the  seed, 
promised  to  Abraham  twenty-four  years  ago. 
Thus  much  God  promised.  Abraham  and  his 
males  should  be  circumcised,  on  their  part,  or 


33 

cut  off  from  the  family,  who  should  bear  his 
son.  Why  ?  they  would  have  broken  God's 
covenant. 

Nov/,  sir,  what  do  you  say  to  your  sophis- 
try ?  Did  you  think  that  we  would  take  for 
granted,  all  that  you  should  say,  as  we  lament 
too  many  do  to  their  hurt?  Do  you  so  lightly 
esteem  the  glorious  truths  of  the  gospel,  that 
you  will  deny  them,  rather  than  lose  the  plea- 
sure of  sprinkling  a  little  water  in  the  face  of 
those  who  are  evidently  under  the  law,  conse- 
quently under  the  curse  ?  If  ever  there  was  an 
attempt  made  to  lead  men  from  the  simplicity 
of  the  gospel,  into  a  bewildered  state,  it  is  to  be 
found  in  your  pamphlet.  The  evidences  pro- 
duced, and  the  mathematical  demonstration 
placed  before  you,  undeniably  prove  the  truth 
which  I  asserted,  and  have  endeavored  to  es- 
tablish, viz. — That  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion, is  not  the  everlasting  covenant  of  grace. 

In  the  second  place  I  was  to  prove,  that 
there  was  a  covenant  made  between  the  Father, 
and  the  Son,  that  it  was  everlasting,  and  or- 
dered in  all  things  and  sure. 

But  I  would  first  make  a  remark  upon  your 
reasoning,  in  page  46 — You  ask,  "  was  there 
no  covenant  made  between  the  Father,  and  the 
Son,  he.  ?  Answer.  There  was  not ;  and  it 
is  unreasonable  and  unscriptural  to  suppose  it, 
because  there  never  was  a  time  when  God  the 
Father,  and  the  Son,  came  to  an  agreement  in 
any  point,,  on  which  they  did  not  agree  before  ; 
so  the  same  agreement  which  now  exists  be- 
tween them,   has  existed   from  eternity  ;   of 


40 

course  never  began."  Wc  thank  you  sir,  for 
that  troth.  It  is  just  what  we  say ;  for  it  is 
impossible  to  eonceive  of  an  everlasting  cove- 
nant in  any  other  way.  We  conceive  of  the 
covenant  just  as  we  do  of  the  sonship.  Will 
you  deny  the  covenant  of  grace  so  clearly  re- 
vealed in  the  scriptures,  because  you  cannot 
fix  a  date  to  its  existence  ?  Do  you  think  of 
the  eternity  of  God,  and  his  works  as  you  do 
of  man,  and  his  works  ?  Surely  your  views  of 
God  are  contemptible,  if  you  think  he  could 
not  do  a  thing,  because  you  cannot  ascertain 
the  time  when  it  was  done.  "  Knowest  thou 
the  ordinances  of  heaven  ?  Canst  thou  set  the 
dominion  of  them  in  the  earth  ?"  Job  xxviii.  33. 
We  cheerfully  agree  with  you  that  "there  never 
was  a  time  when  the  Father,  and  the  Son  did 
not  agree  in  every  particular."  Now  sir,  if  we 
should,  unfortunately  for  your  pamphlet,  prove 
a  covenant,  or  agreement  between  the  Father, 
and  the  Son,  you  have  yourself  fixed  the  date 
of  it ;  it  was  from  eternity,  "  for  there  never 
was  a  time,  (according  to  your  own  declara- 
tion) when  the  Father  and  the  Son  came  to  an 
agreement  in  any  point  on  which  they  did  not 
agree  before." 

There  are  other  mysteries  in  God,  and 
his  works,  as  great  as  the  covenant  of  grace. 
The  glorious  Trinity,  three  in  one,  and  one 
in  three,  cannot  be  fully  comprehended,  yet 
we  believe  it.  Jesus  Christ  is  said  to  be 
**  begotten  of  the  Father — "  the  only  begotten 
of  the  Father:"  Jno.  i.  14.  "  Thou  art  my 
son  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee  :"  Ileb.  i.  5. 


41 

More  might  be  ndded  to  prove  his  sonship : 
yet  we  find  the  child,  that  was  to  be  born  oi" 
the  virgin,  is  styled  "  The  mighty  God,  the* 
everlasting  Father,  the  prince  of  peace  :"  Isa. 
i;;.  8.     The   union  of  the  divine  and  human 
natures  of  our  Lord,  is  a  "  mystery  of  godli- 
ness."    The  imputation  of  sin  to  our  Lord, 
without  which  he  could  not  have  suffered,  and 
the  imputation  of  his  righteousness  to  his  peo- 
ple, without  which  they  cannot  be  saved,  are 
equally  great   and   glorious  truths ;    and  dis- 
covered by  divine  revelation  only.     If  there 
never  was  a  time  when   the   Father  and  the 
Son  came  to  an  agreement   in  any  point,  on 
which  they  did  not  agree   before,  then  they 
eternally  agreed  to  make  man.     "  Let  us  make 
man  :"  Gen.  i.  26.     I  hope,  sir,  you  will  not 
deny  this,  and  I  would  now  ask  as  they  eter- 
nally  determined  to  make  man,  if  it  is  unrea- 
sonable to  believe  that  they  eternally  agreed  to 
save  man.     And  I  would  again  ask,  if  man 
could  be   saved,  as  the  event  has  proven,  if 
Christ  had  not  assumed  their  nature,  and  suf- 
fered     their  stead.     If  these  facts  will  not  be 
denied  (as  they  will  not  but  by  an  infidel)  what 
becomes  of  your  reason,  and  your  scripture. 
Now  then  if  these  are  facts,   and   undeniable 
ones ;   where   is  the    unreasonableness  of  an 
eternal  covenant  of  grace  ?  I  told  you  you  had 
Contemptible  views  of  the  eternal  God  !  and 
you   have  manifested   it  in  your  declaration, 
that  there  *'  was  not  a  covenant  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son."     4t  Declaring  the  end 
from  the  beginning,  and  from  ancient  times 

D  3 


42 

the  things  that  are  not  yet  clone,  saying,  mv 
counsel,  it  shall  stand,  and  I  will  do  all  my 
pleasure  :"  Isa.  xlvi.  10.  If  we  inquire 
what  counsel  the  prophet  intends,  we  will  find 
that  it  is  a  counsel  of  peace,  which  was  to  be 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  as  they 
could  never  be  at  variance,  it  is  evident  that  it 
must  be  a  counsel  of  peace  between  them,  for 
the  people  given  in  covenant  to  the  Son  for 
whom  he  undertook,  and  for  whom  he  would 
suffer.  This  counsel  was  to  be  between  the 
Lord  of  hosts,  and  the  man,  whose  name  is  the 
Branch:  Zech.  vi.  12.  13.  "  I  was  set  up 
Jrom  everlasting-  from  the  beginning-,  or  ever 
the  earth  was  :"  Prov.  viii.  23.  4'  According 
as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  him  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world  :"  Eph.  i.  4.  "  But  accord- 
ing to  his  own  purpose  and  grace  which  was 
given  us  in  Christ  Jesus,  before  the  world  be- 
gan :"  2  Tim.  i.  (J.  "  According  to  the  eter- 
nal purpose  which  he  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus 
our  Lord  :"  Eph.  iii.  1 1.  Here  are  great  ar.d 
glorious  declarations,  big  with  importance  to 
Christ  and  his  people,  but  known  fully  and 
completely  to  God  alone.  But  sir,  if  your  de- 
clarations arc  true,  they  are  unmeaning  words, 
and  cannot  be  accounted  for,  There  is  a  va- 
riety of  such  declarations,  to  which  you  must 
ascribe  some  reasonable  meaning,  or  deny 
your  own  principles.  These  truths  are  as 
clearly  revealed  in  scripture,  as  the  covenant 
of  circumcision,  but  not  as  generally  believed  ; 
and  the  only  reason,  we  can  give  is,  because 
they  are  humbling  to  haughty  nature,  and  self- 


43 

willed  hypocrites.  Now,  sir,  if  you  will  teH 
us  precisely  when  Christ  was  set  up,  when  he 
was  begotten  of  the  Father,  when  this  grace 
spoken  of,  was  treasured  in  him,  and  when 
Paul,  and  the  elect  of  God  were  chosen  in 
Christ  according  to  God's  eternal  purpose  ; 
we  will  tell  you  precisely  when  the  covenant 
of  grace  took  place.  And  if  you  can  prove 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  as  old  as  this 
covenant,  we  will  ask  your  pardon. 

I  shall  now  prove  the  covenant  of  grace, 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  "  I  was  set 
up  from  everlasting*  from  the  beginning  or 
ever  the  earth  was:"  Prov.  viii.  23.  We 
conceive  it  impossible  for  words  to  express 
the  eternity  of  an  act  more  fully.  When  the 
Psalmist  would  give  us  his  views  of  the  eter- 
nity of  God,  he  said,  "  from  everlasting  to 
everlasting  thou  art  God  :"  Psa.  xc.  2.  It 
will  not  be  contended  that  the  person  spoken 
of  in  the  foregoing  passage  was  set  up  as  God's 
son :  this  would  be  ignorance  indeed.  That 
person  was  by  nature  the  son  of  God,  or  he 
never  could  have  atoned  for  sin.  It  was  his 
divinity  as  the  Son  of  God  that  sanctified  the 
human  nature  and  rendered  its  obedience  and 
sufferings  meritorious.  He  was  set  up  as  me- 
diator, as  the  glorious  covenant  head  of  his 
church,  and  this  is  what  the  apostle  alluded  to, 
when  he  told  his  Galatian  brethren  "  that  the 
covenant  that  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in 
Christ"  (before  the  foundation  of  the  world) 
and  now  revealed  unto  Abraham  "  was  the 
gospel  preached  to  him"  "  the  law  that  was 


IVur  hundred  and  thirty  years  after'*  (this  glo. 
rious  revelation  was  made)  "  cannot  disannul, 
that  it  shonkl  make  the  promise  of  none  effect." 
Why  ?  because  it  was  confirmed  by  oath. 
"  Once  have  1  sworn  by  my  holiness,  that  I 
will  not  lie  unto  David:"  Psa.  Ixxxix.  35. 
What  is  the  promise  made  to  David,  who  here 
personates  Christ?  "  My  mercy  will  I  keep 
for  him  for  evermore,  and  my  covenant  shall 
stand  fast  with  him:"  Ixxxix.  28.  Agreea- 
ble to  what  you  have  said  in  page  57,  your 
answer  will  be,  David  was  intended  :  but  this 
we  deny  unequivocally,  for  it  is  said,  "  I  will 
make  him  my  first  born,  higher  than  the  kings 
of  the  earth,  v.  27.  Kis  seed  will  I  make  to 
endure  forever,  and  his  throne  as  the  days  of 
heaven:"  v.  29.  If  you  will  still  say  David 
was  intended,  you  will  say  any  thing.  But  I 
ask  was  David  higher  than  Solomon  ?  not  to 
ndd  than  all  other  kings  of  the  earih.  Hath 
this  throne  endured  until  now  ?  And  lastly  are 
the  heavens  no  more  ?  I  have  been  particular 
here,  because  you  have  said  that  a  Pcedobap'ist 
minister  at  a  certain  time  shewed  from  Psalm 
Ixxxix.  3.  "  David  and  all  believers  belong- 
ed to  Christ,  and  Christ  to  Abraham."  You 
have  said  nothing,  sir,  to  strengthen  the  scrip- 
ture knowledge  of  your  Poedobaptist  brother, 
for  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  same  person  was 
intended  in  the  3d.  verse,  that  we  have  by  the 
27th  and  29th  verses  proved  to  be  Christ. 

Again,  "  Behold  my  servant  whom.  I  uphold, 
mine  elect  in  whom  my  soul  delighteth  :  I  have 
put  my  spirit  upon  him,  he  shaU  bring  judg- 


45 

ment  to  the  gentiles.  He  shall  not  cry,  nor 
lift  up,  nor  cause  his  voice  to  be  heard  in  the 
street.  A  bruised  reed  shall  he  not  break  : 
and  the  smoaking  flax  shall  he  not  quench  :  he 
shall  bring  forth  judgment  unto  truth.  He  shall 
not  fail  nor  be  discouraged  till  he  shall  have  set 
judgment  in  the  earth  :  and  the  isles  shall 
wait  for  his  law  :"  Isa.  xlii.  1.  2.  3.  4.  That 
this  passage  was  a  prophecy  of  Christ  cannot 
be  doubted ;  but  for  proof  of  it  read  Matt, 
xii.  18 — 20.  In  what  respect  can  he  be  called 
the  servant  of  God  ?  it  must  be  in  his  humilia- 
tion, as  becoming  one  with  man,  to  do  his  fa- 
ther's will.  In  this  respect,  he  said  "  my  Fa- 
ther is  greater  than  I :"  "  but  in  another  he 
said.  ".land  my  Father  are  one."  "Mine 
Elect,"  elected  the  covenant  head  of  his  glori- 
ous body,  the  church  ;  who  are  elected  in  him. 
"  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  church" — even  as 
Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself 
for  it  "  for  no  man  ever  yet  hated  his  own 
flesh  ;  but  nourisheth  and  cherisheth  it,  even 
as  the  Lord  the  Church  ;  for  we  are  members 
of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones." 
(What  a  close  and  glorious  union  is  this.) 
This  is  a  great  mystery  :  but  I  speak  concern- 
ing Christ,  and  his  church :  Eph.  v.  23.  25. 
29.  30.  32.  "  And  he  is  the  head  of  the  body, 
the  church:"  Col.  i.  18— "  and  hath  put  all 
things  under  his  feet,  and  gave  him  to  be  the 
head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  which  is  his 
body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in  all :" 
Eph.  i.  22.  23.  More  might  be  added  :  let 
this  suffice  however  to  prove  him  the  elect 


if 

head  :  elected  by  the  Father,  and  given  to, 
and  for,  the  church.  In  this  view  he  is  God's 
servant,  and  his  elect ;  in  whom  his  soul  de- 
lighted. 

Again,  God  promises  to  qualify  him  for  the 
very  purpose  of  redeeming  his  elect.  "  Thou 
lovest  righteousness  and  hatest  wickedness, 
therefore  God,  thy  God  hath  anointed  thee  with 
the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows:"  Psa. 
xlv.  7.  Whom  can  we  understand  by  fel- 
lows of,  (or  equal  with)  Christ  ?  Surely  not 
those  who  live  and  die  in  sin  ;  but  those 
whom  God  hath  exalted  to  this  equality  by  hw 
gift,  in  the  covenant  of  grace.  "  I  have  put 
my  spirit  upon  him,  he  shall  bring  forth  judg- 
ment to  the  gentiles  :"  Isa.  xlii.  1.  Now 
speaking  to  his  son  he  saith,  "  I  the  Lord  have 
called  thee  in  righteousness,  and  will  hold  thine 
hand,  and  will  keep  thee,  and  give  thee  for  a 
covenant  of  the  people,  for  a  light  of  the  gen- 
tiles :  to  open  the  blind  eyes,  and  bring  out 
the  prisoners  from  the  prison,  and  them  that 
sit  in  darkness  out  of  the  prison  hotse.  I  am 
the  Lord,  that  is  my  name  :"  Isa.  xlii.  6.  7. 
8.  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  in  an  acceptable 
time  have  I  heard  thee  and  in  a  day  of  salva- 
tion have  I  helped  thee  ;  and  I  will  preserve 
thee,  and  give  thee  for  a  covenant  of  the  peo- 
ple, to  establish  the  earth,  to  cause  to  inherit 
the  desolate  heritage.1; ;  that  thou  mayest  say 
to  the  prisoners  go  forth  ;  to  them  that  are  in 
darkness,  shew  yourselves,  they  (the  elect,) 
shall  feed  in  the  ways,  and  their  pastures 
shall   be  in  high  places :"  Isa.  xlix.  8.  9.  10. 


47 

**  They  shall  go  in  and  out  and  find  pasture  :'* 
Jno.  x.  9.  Who  can  be  meant  here?  Can  it 
be  all  men  ?  If  so  then  all  must  be  saved,  and 
that  will  be  contrary  to  tl'e  word  of  God,  and 
the  belitf  of  all  men,  but  Universaiists.  Our 
Lord  haih  told  us  in  the  10, h  of  St  John's 
gospel,  that  it  is  his  sheep.  "  Bj  his  know- 
ledge shall  my  righteous  servant  justify  ma- 
ny:" Iisa.  liii.  11.  "  For  it  became  him  for 
whom  are  all  things,  in  bringing  many  sor.s 
unto  glory,  to  make  the  captain  of  their  salva- 
tion perfect  through  sufferings.  For  both  he 
who  sanctifieth,  and  they  who  are  sanctified, 
are  all  of  one  :  for  which  cause  he  is  not 
ashamed  to  call  them  brethren  :"  Heb.  ii.  10. 
11.  In  what  sense  can  we  possibly  under- 
stand the  apostle,  that  they  are  "  all  of  one" 
if  not,  of  one  covenant,  of  one  family,  of  one 
interest  ?  "  A  body  hast  thou  prepared  me, 
lo  I  come  as  'A  is  written  (in  the  psalms)  to  do 
thy  will  O  God:"  Heb.  x.  5.  7.  What  was 
the  will  of  God  ?  That  Christ  should  redeem 
to  God  by  his  blood  a  people  (a  covenant  peo- 
ple) "  out  of  every  kindred,  and  tongue,  and 
people,  and  nation  ;  and  make  them  unto  God, 
kings  and  priests,  that  they  may  reign  with 
him  on  earth,"  (and  in  heaven)  :  Rev.  v.  9.- 
10.  Thus  we  see  clearly  from  these  passages, 
(and  more  might  be  added)  that  the  dear  Re- 
deemer is  proved  to  be  qualified  for  the  im- 
portant office  to  which  he  was  set  up  from 
everlasting,  and  which  he  freely  undertook  in 
the  fullness  of  time,  i.  e.  to  be  the  covenant 
head  of  the  church.     He  is  called  in  righte- 


4g 

ousness,  endowed  with  knowledge — a  body 
prepared  him — he  hath  the  spirit  without  mea- 
sure, and  made  perfect  by  suffering — suffering 
all  the  innocent  infirmities  of  his  people,  and 
the  temptations  of  satan  ;  "  that  he  might  be 
able  to  succour  them  who  are  tempted,"  and 
all  this  done  for  and  to  him,  that  he  might 
"  bring  many  sons  to  glory,"  even  all  God's 
covenant  people  :  "  for  he  who  sanctifieth 
(Jesus  by  his  spirit)  and  they  who  are  sancti- 
fied (his  covenant  people)  are  all  of  one." 
They  have  one  God  as  their  common  Father. 
They  are  one  as  sons  of  God,  they  have  one 
body,  of  which  Christ  is  the  head.  They 
have  one  interest,  viz.  to  glorify  God,  their 
common  lather,  and  they  shall  have  one  re- 
ward, viz.  eternal  glory. 

Let  us  take  another  view  of  this  subject. 
Hath  Christ  any  interest  in  this  all  important, 
and  painful  undertaking"?  He  lias  a  twofold 
interest.  First — As  God  he  would  not  let  the 
devil  his  enemy,  triumph  in  the  victory  he  had 
obtained  over  his  creature  man ;  and  therefore 
from  eternity  determined  to  save  his  people. 
He  said,  "  I  have  loved  thee  with  an  everlast- 
ing love  :  therefore  (or  for  this  cause,)  with 
loving  kindness  have  I  drawn  thee  :"  Jer.  xxxi. 
3.  "  Upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church, 
and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
it :"  Matt.  xvi.  18.  "  We  love  him;  because 
he  first  loved  us :"  1st  Jno.  v.  19.  Secondly  : 
As  mediator  or  covenant  head  set  up  from 
everlasting,  he  had  engaged  with  his  Father, 
to  sanctify  his  people  and  present  them  a  glo. 


49 

rious  church,  and  deliver  them  from  this  pre* 
sent  evil  world.  First — He  had  eternally  de- 
termined to  save  his  people,  and  had  set  them 
apart  in  his  eternal  foreknowledge  for  that 
purpose,  "  whom  he  foreknew"  (in  the  cove- 
nant of  grace)  "them  he  also  did  predestinate ;" 
to  what  ?  "  having  predestinated  us  unto  the 
adoption  of  children,  by  Jesus  Christ  unto 
himself  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his 
will."  As  God,  "  He  and  his  Father  are 
one  :"  Jno.  x.  30.  Then  it  appears  that  it  was 
the  will  and  good  pleasure  of  the  Father  also, 
thus  to  predestinate  his  church  to  be  accepted 
in  the  beloved!  "  For  he  (the  Father)  hath 
chosen  us  in  him,  (Christ)  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world,  (not  to  licentiousness,  as 
some  erroneously  sa}',  but)  that  we  should  be 
holy  and  without  blame  (in  life  and  conversa- 
tion) before  him  in  love,  to  the  praise  of  the 
glory  of  his  grace,  wherein  he  hath  made  us 
accepted  in  the  beloved"  (Jesus)  :  Rom.  viii. 
29.  Eph.  i.  4.  5.  6.  Secondly — As  mediator 
he  had  an  interest  also.  His  word  and  honor 
were  engaged.  We  have  already  proven  that 
there  was  a  covenant  made  ;  that  Christ  was 
set  up  from  everlasting  as  the  covenant  head  ; 
that  he  was  sanctified  for  the  ofhce  ;  and  that 
a  body  was  prepared  him.  He  informs  us  ex- 
pressly of  the  purpose  for  which  he  came  into 
this  world  :  c<  I  came  down  from  heaven  not 
to  do  mine  own  will,  (that  is,  he  had  not  a  se- 
parate, but  an  united  will  with  the  Father,) 
but  the  will  of  "  him  that  sent  me  :"  Jno.  vi. 
38.     We  now  view  him  in  his  mediatorial  of- 

E 


50 

fice,  and  Considered  in  this  character,  his  Father, 
who  sent  him,  was  greater  than  he.  "I  seek 
not  mine  own  will  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent 
me  :"  Jno.  v.  30.  From  these  declarations  of 
our  blessed  Redeemer,  it  is  very  evident  that 
he  had  engaged  in  the  glorious  work  of  re- 
demption, and  came  down  from  heaven  to  earth 
to  perform  it  according  to  covenant.  Dear 
and  blessed  Jesus,  what  was  thy  Father's  will  ? 
"  This  is  the  Father's  will  that  sent  me,  that 
of  all  which  he  hath  given  me,  I  should  lose 
nothing,  but  should  raise  it  up  again  at  the  last 
day  :"  39.  "  And  this  is  the  will  of  him  that 
sent  me,  that  every  one  that  seeth  the  son,  and 
bclieveth  on  him,  may  have  everlasting  life  ; 
and  twitt  raise  him  tip  at  the  last  day  :"  40. 
Blessed  and  glorious  Jesus,  now  speakest  thou 
plainly  ;  but  pardon  our  weakness,  and  permit 
us  to  inquire  of  thee,  who  best  knowest  thine 
own,  and  Father's  will ;  will  they  not  Fall  from 
grace,  and  finally  perish  ?  They  will  fall  into 
sin,  they  are  not  perfect  in  this  life  ;  "for  there 
is  not  a  just  man  upon  earth  that  docth  good, 
and  sinneth  not :"  Eccl.  vii.  20.  "  Therefore 
I  came  down  from  heaven,"  to  satisfy  justice. 
Remember  the  assertion  of  my  apostle  to  the 
gentiles.  "  For  he  was  made  sin  for  us  who 
knew  no  sin  rhat  we  might  be  made  the  righte- 
ousness of  God  in  him:"  2  Cor.  v.  21.  All 
the  sins  of  my  church  were  imputed  to  me, 
or  I  could  not  have  suffered,  I  knew  "  no  sin," 
but  by  imputation  ;  and  I  have  satisfied  divine 
justice  for  them  all ;  and  in  return  I  impute 
my  righteousness  to  them,  for  in  this  way  alone 


51 

are  they  to  be  made  righteous  ;  and  how  can 
they  finally  perish  when  they  have  my  righte- 
ousness? Beside  "  there  shall  no  evil  happen 
to  the  righteous:"  Prov.  xii.  21.  and  smvly., 
net  the  greatest  evil  of  losing  my  righteous- 
ness, and  my  love.  There  is  no  record  in  all 
my  word,  of  one  falling  from  the  love  of  God. 
I  covenanted  with  my  Father  for  sheep  (there 
be  many  goats  that  follow  me,  but  I  know 
them  not.)  "  I  am  the  good  shepherd,  and 
know  my  sheep,  and  am  known  of  mine  :" 
Jno.  x.  11.  "  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the 
sheep:"  v.  15.  "  My  sheep  hear  my  voice, 
and  I  know  them  (to  an  individual)  and  they 
follow  me,  (both  in  my  doctrine  and  ordinan- 
ces.) And  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life,  and 
they  shall  never  perish,  neither  shall  any  pluck 
them  out  of  my  hand.  My  Father  which 
gave  them  me  (in  the  everlasting  covenant  of 
grace)  is  greater  than  all  (in  hell,  or  on  earth) 
and  none  is  able  to  pluck  them  cut  of  my 
Father's  hand:"  Jno.  x.  27.  28.  29.  I  will 
join  with  my  Father  in  this  great  work,  my 
heart  has  been  set  upon  it-from  the  foundation 
of  the  world  ;  and  though  I  am  now  in  the 
humble  form  of  a  covenant  head  of  my  church, 
and  a  servant  of  my  Father,  to  do  his  will  and 
save  those,  whom  he  hath  given  me  ;  yet  in  one 
respect,  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one:"  v.  30. 
And  according  to  his,  atd  my  own  will,  as 
one  with  him  ;  and  my  engagement  as  media- 
tor, I  will  sanctify  and  cleanse  it,  with  the 
washing  of  water  by  the  word,  and  present  it 
a  glorious  churchr  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle 


52 


or  any  such  tiling  ;  but  holy  and  without  blem- 
ish :     Eph.  v.  26.  27.     We  have  now  shown 
the  interest  which  Christ  had  in  this  interesting 
aflair.      We  have  shown  his  engagements  al- 
so ;  will  any  one  have  the  hardiness  to  say  he 
will  not  make  them  good  ?  Therefore  to  per- 
iorm    his  Father's   will,  and   make  good  his 
engagement,  he  assumed  human  nature ;  for 
as  man  had  violated  the  law  of  God,  man  must 
make  reparation .     But  a  mere  man  was  utterly 
inadequate  to  this  important  work.     Therefore 
a  divine  person  must  assume,  into  union  with 
bis  perfect  and  infinite  nature,  the  human  na- 
ture, that  by  this  unio.i  an  adequate  atonement 
should  be  made  for  sin. 

As  Christ  had  undertaken  the  cause  of  man 
from   everlasting,   when  he  was  set  up  as  the 
covenant  head  ;  it  became  necessary  for  him  to 
be  made,  "  like   unto  his  brethren,   that  he 
might  be  a  merciful  and  faithful  high  priest  in 
things  pertaining  to   God."      Why  ?  "    To 
make  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  people  :" 
Heb.   ii.    17.     What   people?   Can   it  be  all 
mankind  ?  not  it  cannot  be,  for  had  he  made 
reconciliation   for  all  their  sins,  they  of  course 
would  be  all  reconciled.     But  if  any  die  unre- 
conciled, it  is  evident  that  he  did  net  make 
atonement  for  them  ;  for  if  he  had  made  atone- 
ment for  them  all,  they  would  have  been  infalli- 
bly saved  ;  for  he  finished  the  work  his  Father 
gave  him  to  do.     Could  it  be  possible  he  had 
not,  he  would  be  found  a  false  prophet,  for  in 
a  very  solemn  appeal  to  his  Father  he  declared, 
••  he  had  finished  the  work  La  gave  him  to  do ;" 


53 

and  desired  to  be  glorified  with  him:  Jno.  xvii. 
4.  5.  From  hence  we  are  compelled,  and  feel 
justified  to  infer,  it  was  the  people  given  him 
in  the  everlasting  covenant  of  grace  ;  "  for 
in  that  he  himself  hath  suffered  being  tempted, 
he  is  able  to  succor  them  that  are  tempted  :" 
Heb.  ii.  16.  Hence  you  see  it  was  necessary 
for  him  to  assume  t/wir  nature.  The  nature 
of  angels  would  not  have  answered  the  purpo- 
ses of  man.  "  For  verily  he  took  not  on  him 
the  nature  of  argels,  but  he  took  on  him  the 
seed  of  Abraham  :'*■  v.  16.  This  p.lorious 
event  was  revealed  to  the  Fathers,  thousands 
of  years  before,  and  this  was  what  enabled 
them  to  bear  afflictions,  lions,  fire,  trials,  cruel 
mockings,  scourging,  bonds,  and  imprison- 
ment ;  stones,  yea  saws  and  swords.  Adam 
believed  in  the  seed,  the  blessed  seed  of  the 
woman  to  come,  who  should  bruise  the  serpent's 
head.  Christ  as  the  seed  of  the  woman  was 
typically  crucified  before  them  in  the  sacrifice 
of  slain  animals  ;  and  the  skins  of  the  animals 
thus  offered  in  sacrifice,  were  put  upon  Adam 
and  Eve  ;  strikingly  representing  the  glorious, 
all  atoning  and  acceptable  righteousness,  which 
the  seed  of  the  woman  should  bring  in,  in  the 
fulness  of  time,  by  his  obedience  and  suffer- 
ing, for  them,  and  their  elect  posterity.  Abel 
had  the  same  view  by  faith,  by  which  he  offer- 
ed an  acceptable  sacrifice  to  God.  Cain,  also 
offered  a  sacrifice,  but  it  was  not  accepted,  be- 
cause he  had  not  proper  views  of  the  seed  of 
the  woman.      As  it  is  now,  so  it  was  then, 

"  There  is  none  other  name  under  heaven  giv- 
e  3 


54 

en  among  men,  whereby  we  must  be  saved  :'* 
Acts.  iv.  12.  Enoch,  Noah,  and  others  had 
the  same  views  by  faith,  and  we  doubt  not  that 
it  was  orally,  and  traditionally  handed  down 
from  Adam.  God  gave  them  the  faith  of  reli- 
ance, and  they  were  saved  by  faith  in  him  \\  ho 
was  to  come;  and  who  was  revealed  in  the  first 
and  after  ages  of  the  world,  as  the  seed  of  the 
woman.  About  two  thousand  years  alter  the 
creation,  a  revelation  was  made  to  Abraham  of 
the  same  seed  with  this  addition,  that  that  seed 
was  to  come  through  him.  "  In  thee  shall  all 
the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed  :"  Gen.  xii. 
3.  This  is  the  time  alluded  to  by  our  Lord 
when  he  told  his  enemies,  the  natural  posterity 
of  Abraham,  "  your  father  Abraham  rejoiced 
to  see  my  day,  and  he  saw  it  and  was  *Jad  :" 
Jno.  viii.  56.  He  saw  it  again  when  the  pro- 
mise was  renewed,  and  Isaac  was  to  be  the 
seed,  of  whom  should  come  the  blessed  seed. 
**  In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called  :"  Rom.  ix. 
7.  But  he  saw  it  at  another  time  under  very 
trying,  and  awful  circumstances,  when  called 
to  offer  his  son,  his  only  son  (by  Sarah)  as  a 
sacrifice.  Here  the  glorious  seed  was  in  his 
type,  slain,  and  raised  from  the  dead.  But 
we  should  exceed  our  limits,  were  we  to  en- 
large further.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  the  glori- 
ous seed  was  so  manifest  by  promise,  and  by 
type,  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  and  Joseph, 
gave  their  posterity  assurances  of  the  faithful- 
ness of  God  to  them,  and  to  their  seed  after 
them  ;  that  the  faithful  among  them,  looked 
with  faith,  and  strong  expectation,  for  him  un^ 


55 

til  he  was  bom.  Accordingly  the  glorious- 
seed  appeared,  manifested  his  divinity,  obeyed 
the  law,  and  suffered  its  penalty  ;  "  according 
to  the  determinate  council,  and  foreknowledge 
of  God:"  Acts.  ii.  23.  Being  by  wicked 
hands  crucified  and  slain  ;  but  the  powers  of 
darkness  could  not  prevail,  he  arose  from  the 
dead,  ascended  on  high,  and  is  now  an  inter- 
cessor at  the  right  hand  of  God. 

What  shall  we  say  to  these  all  important  and 
glorious  truths  ?  Shall  Jesus  from  all  eternity 
devise,  and  in  time  execute,  his  most  gracioua 
plan  of  redemption  ;  and  shall  he  have  no  cer- 
tain reward  for  his  suffering  ?  Shall  it  be  in  the 
power  of  men  or  devils  to  destroy  his  hope  ? 
Begone  unbelief  !  begone  infidelity!  He  shall; 
have  an  ample  reward.  What  shall  be  his  re- 
ward ?  we  answer,  his  people.  The  Lord's 
portion  is.  his  people,  Jacob  (the  church)  is  the 
lot  of  his  inheritance  :"  Deut.  xxxii.  9.  "  Thy 
people  shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  pow- 
er :"  Psa.  ex.  3.  That  these  words  were  ad- 
dressed to  our  Lord,  is  evident  from  the  next 
verse.  "  The  Lord  hath  sworn,  and  will  not 
repent,  thou  art  a  priest  forever  after  the  order 
of  Melchizedeck  :"  4.  But  this  portion,  his 
people,  is  promised  in  express,  and  emphatical 
words,  by  the  prophet  Isaiah.  "  Therefore 
will  I  divide  him  a  portion  with  the  great,  and 
he  shall  divide  the  spoil  with  the  strong."' 
Why  Lord,  why  wilt  thou  give  thy  son  a  divi- 
dend ?  He  hath  done  my  will,  he  hath  per- 
formed;' the  covenant ;  yea,  "  He  hath  poured 
out  his  soul  unto  death  :"  liii.  12.      "  I  wilt 


5(3 

give  thcc  the  heathen  for  thine  inheritance,  and 
the  uttermost  parts  of  the  tarth  for  thy  posses- 
sion:" Psa.  ii.  8.  He  shall  be  king  in  Zion. 
"  Yet  have  I  bet  my  king  upon  my  holy  hill  of 
Zion  :"  (my  church)  v.  7.  "  The  heavenly 
host  shall  worship  him  saying,  Holy,  Holy, 
Holy,  Lord,  God,  Almighty  ;"  the  covenant 
people  shall  worship  him,  saying,  "  thou  art 
worthy  to  take  the  book  and  open  the  seals 
thereof;  for  thou  Watt,  slain  and  hast  redeem- 
ed ns  to  God  by  thy  blood,  out  of  every  kind- 
red, and  tongue,  and  people,  and  nation  :  Rev. 
v.  9.  After  this  I  beheld  and  lo  a  great  multi- 
tude, which  no  man  could  number,  out  of  all 
nations,  and  kindred,  and  people,  and  tongues, 
stood  before  the  throne,  and  before  the  lamb : 
cloathed  in  white  robes  and  palms  in  their 
hands  :  and  crying  with  a  loud  voice,  saying-, 
salvation  to  our  God  which  sitteth  upon  the 
throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb  :"  Rev.  vii.  8.  9. 
"  And  I  beheld  and  heard  the  voice  of  many 
angels  round  about  the  throne,  and  the  beasts 
and  the  elders  :  and  the  number  of  them  was, 
ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand,  and  thousands 
of  thousands:  saying  with  a  loud  voice,  wor- 
thy is  the  lamb  that  was  slain,  to  receive  power 
and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and  strength,  and 
honor,  and  glory,  and  blessing.  Blessing  and 
honor,  and  glory,  be  unto  him  that  sitteth  upon 
the  throne,  and  unto  the  lamb  forever  and  ever. 
And  the  four  beasts  said  Amen."  So  say  we  : 
Amen  and  Amen.  This  is  his  reward.  His 
people  are  to  be  his  reward  ;  but  they  are  in  a 
state  of  sin, M  conceived  in  sin,  and  brought  forth 


57 

in  iniquity:"  yea — "  dead  in  trespasses  and 
in  sins  ;"  and  that  to  such  an  awful  degree  that 
the  blessed  redeemer  saith  ;  "  ye  will  not  come 
unto  me  that  ye  might  have  life."  It  may  be 
they  will  not  believe,  and  thy  word,  thy  blessed 
word  declareth,  "  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."  Nay  man,  "  Is  any  thing  too  hard 
for  thee  Lord  ?  Sarah  shall  have  a  son  :"  Gen. 
xviii.  14.  Are  the  souls  of  sinners  more  dead 
than  Sarah's  womb?  More  lifeless  than  the 
dry  bones  in  the  valley  ?  Eze.  xxxvii.  1.  Did 
I  not  say  to  the  one  bring  forth ;  and  unto  the 
others  live  :  and  did  they  not  obey  me  ?  I  will 
exert  the  same  life  giving  power,  on  the  souls 
of  sinners.  They  shall  rise  from  their  spiritual 
death,  I  will  reveal  my  son  in  them  and  save 
them ;  I  wiil  call  them  to  sanctification  and 
glory,  as  the  end  of  all  my  labor  cf  love  to 
them.  "  But  we  are  bound  to  give  thanks  al- 
ways to  God  for  you  brethren,  beloved  of  the 
Lord,  because  God  has  from  the  beginning 
chosen  you  to  salvation,  through  sanctification 
of  the  spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth  :"  2  Thess. 
ii.  13.  Whether  this  choice  was  made  from 
everlasting,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world, 
the  beginning  of  their  lives,  or  from  the  be- 
ginning of  their  believing;  they  were  from 
that  beginning,  chosen  to  salvation :  and  the 
truth  of  God  is  pledged  to  sanctify  and  save 
them  ;  therefore  he  who  denies  the  salvation, 
the  eternal  salvation  of  his  elect,  hath  endea- 
vored to  make  God  a  liar,  and  shall  answer  for 
his  infidelity  and  presumption.  "  Elect  ac- 
cording to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Fa- 


58 


ther,  through  sanctification  of  the  spirit  unto 
obedience,  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ :  1  Pet.  i.  2.  But  perhaps  it  may  be 
for  some  good  in  them  ?  JVb.  "  Who  hath 
saved  us,  and  called  us  with  an  holy  calling, 
not  according  to  our  works,  (what  then  Paul) 
but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace 
which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the 
world  began  :"  2  Tim.  i.  9.  "  By  grace  ye 
are  saved  through  faith  and  that  not  of  your, 
selves  ;  it  is  the  gift  of  God  :  not  of  works, 
lest  any  man  should  boast:"  Kph.  ii.  8.  9. 
More  proof  might  be  adduced  to  shew  that 
the  gift  of  Christ's  people  to  him  was  eternal, 
and  irrespective  of  conditions  in  the  persons 
given.  We  have  fully  proven  that  this  gift  of 
Christ's  people  was  actually  made  to  him  from 
eternity,  and  to  be  as  it  respects  them  uncon. 
ditional.  We  have  also  proven  the  certainty 
of  their  salvation. 

Let  us  lastly  inquire  whether  there  be  a  de- 
finite, or  indefinite  number  thus  given.  We 
say  that  the  number  is  definite,  known  only  to 
God  however.  This,  we  prove,  first  by  ob- 
serving, that  as  God  knew  the  end  from  the 
beginning,  not  one  could  be  saved  more,  not 
one  could  be  saved  less,  than  he  had  deter- 
mined to  save.  If  we  say  otherwise,  we  de- 
prive him  as  far  as  we  can  of  his  foreknow- 
ledge and  power ;  we,  in  effect  say,  he  is  migh- 
ty, but  the  devil  his  enemy  is  mightier.  But 
if  particular  persons  are  saved,  because  God 
would  save  them,  without  any  good  foreseen 
in,  or  done  by  them ;  and  if  particular  scats 


59 

are  set  apart  for  particular  persons,  will  it  be 
improper  for  us  to  conclude,  all  are  saved  for 
the  same  reasons,  and  particular  scats  are  pre- 
pared for  all,  as  well  as  for  some  ?  Zacchcus 
was  called  by  name  because  he  was  a  son  of 
Abraham,  or  in  other  words,  because  he  was 
in  the  covenant  of  grace :  all  the  called  are  said 
to  be  the  children  of  Abraham.  "  For  if  ye 
he  Christ's  (by  election)  preserved  in  Christ 
and  called,"  then  arc  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise."  And  being 
heirs,  ye  must,  nay,  you  shall  have  the  inherit- 
ance. Paul  was  called  by  name,  and  Ananias 
told  that  he  was  a  chosen  vessel.  It  matters 
not  for  any  to  say  he  was  called  and  chosen  to 
be  an  apostle,  we  grant  he  was ;  but  he  was 
chosen  at  the  same  time  in  the  covenant  of 
grace,  or  he  never  would  have  been  chosen  to 
the  apostleship.  It  may  perhaps  be  asked, 
was  Judas  also  in  the  covenant  of  grace;  for 
'  he  was  an  apostle  :  we  answer,  no  ;  he  was 
not,  in  the  covenant  of  grace.  It  was  necessa- 
ry that  a  familiar  friend  of  Christ's,  and  one 
that  did  cat  with  him,  should  betray  him. 
Christ  therefore  did  call  him  to  the  apostleship 
for  that  express  purpose,  that  he  should  eat 
with  him  and  appear  to  be  his  friend.  But 
as  there  was  no  violence  offered  to  his  will,  it 
did  not  in  the  least  injure  him,  to  have  that 
office  ;  and  as  he  acted  from  first  to  last  from 
wicked  motives  the  sin  lay  on  himself:" — 
Psa.  xli.  9*  Acts  i.  16.  17.  18.  Paul  told 
Timothy  some  had  erred  concerning  the  faith  : 
"  Nevertheless  the  foundation  of  God  standeth 


60 

sure,  having  this  seal."  Why,  Paul,  is  it  seal- 
ed ?  yes,  to  the  day  of  redemption.  What  is  the 
seal  ?  "  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  his  :" 
2  Tim-  ii.  19:  He  knoweth  to  an  individual. 
We  will  now  add  testimonies  from  our  blessed 
Lord,  and  close  this  head.  "  But  to  sit  upon 
my  right  hand  and  my  left,  is  not  mine  (as  me- 
diator) io  give,  but  it  shall  be  given  them,  for 
whom  it  is  prepared  of  my  Father :"  Matt.  xx. 
23. — Again,  "come  ye  blessed  of  my  Father, 
inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world:"  Matt.  xxv.  34. 
Christ  told  his  disciples  not  to  rejoice  because 
unclean  spirits  were  subject  to  them,  "  but 
rather  to  rejoice  because  their,  names  were 
written  in  heaven:"  Luke  x.  20.  Glorious 
God !  thou  hast  prepared  mansions  for  thy 
people ;  thou  hast  written  their  names  in  hea- 
ven. Now  if  written  they  must  be  individu- 
ally written  ;  and  if  written  eighteen  hundred 
years  ago,  why  not  from  eternity.  It  is  not 
presumable  that  he  had  a  book  for  the  apos- 
tles only.  Nay,  Paul  declares  he  had  not. 
"  And  I  entreat  thee  also,  true  yoke  fellow, 
help  those  women  which  labored  with  me  in 
the  gospel,  with  Clement  also,  and  with  other 
my  fellow  laborers,  whose  names  are  in  the 
book  of  life  :"  Phi.  iv.  3*  Nor  is  it  possible 
that  the  devil  once  thrown  down  from  heaven, 
will  ever  be  able  to  ascend  again,  and  blot  out 
their  names.  And  should  it  be  said  God  will 
blot  them  out,  it  will  be  a  denial  of  his  glorious 
perfections,  particularly  his  immutability. 
"  To  the  general  assembly  and  church  of  the 


61 

first  born  which  are  written  in  heaven  :"  Heb. 
xii.  13.  "For  ye  are  dead,  and  your  life  is 
hid  with  Christ  in  God  ;  and  when  Christ  who 
is  our  life  shall  appear,  then  shall  ye  also  appear 
with  him  in  glory  :"  Col.  iii.  3.  4. 

"  O  glorious  day,  O  blest  abode, 
To  be  forever  near  my  God." 

Having  proved  the  everlasting  covenant  of 
grace,  made  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  ; 
that  it  was  ordered  in  all  things,  and  sure  to  all 
the  parties  interested  therein,  viz.  Christ,  and 
his  church  ;  I  shall  close  the  subject  with  the 
words  of  the  beloved  disciple  :  Rev.  xxi.  21. 
27.  "  And  the  twelve  gates  were  twelve  pearls, 
every  several  gate  was  one  pearl :  and  the  street 
of  the  city  was  pure  gold,  as  it  were  transpar- 
ent glass.  And  I  saw  no  temple  therein,  for 
the  Lord  God  Almighty,  and  the  Lamb  were 
the  temple  of  it.  And  the  city  had  no  need 
of  the  sun,  neither  of  the  moon  to  shine  in  it ; 
for  the  glory  of  God  did  lighten  it,  and  the 
Lamb  is  the  light  thereof.  And  the  nations  of 
them  which  are  saved,  shall  walk  in  the  light 
of  it :  and  the  kings  of  the  earth  do  bring  their 
glory  and  honor  into  it.  And  the  gates  of  it 
shall  not  be  shut  at  all  by  day,  for  there  shall 
be  no  night  there.  And  they  shall  bring  the 
glorv  and  honor  of  the  nations  into  it.  And 
there  shall  in  no- wise  enter  into  it  any  thing 
that  defileth,  nor  whatsoever  worketh  abomina- 
tion, or  maketh  a  lie  :  but  they  which  are 
written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life." 

Your  vindication  of  the  right  of  infants  to 
baptism,  is  predicated  on  this  position,  that  the 


62 

covenant  of  circumcision,  made  with  Abra- 
ham, was  the  only  new  and  everlasting  cove- 
nant of  grace.  You  have  endeavored  to  estab- 
lish this  position,  by  supposition  and  affirma- 
tion, but  no  where  by  proof.  In  this  my  answer 
to  you,  I  have  already  proved,  that  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision,  made  with  Abraham, 
was  not  the  covenant  of  grace.  I  have  also 
established  that  grand  and  all- important  doc- 
trine of  our  holy  religion,  viz.  That  the  ever- 
lasting covenant  of  grace  was  made  with  Christ, 
embracing  all  believers  to  the  end  of  time,  and 
securing  their  perseverance  in  grace,  to  glory. 
Now,  sir,  on  the  well  known  and  just  principle 
that  a  building  must  fall,  when  its  foundation 
is  removed,  it  will  necessarily  follow  that  your 
labored  superstructure  in  favor  of  infant  bap- 
tism must  be  brought  to  the  ground,  as  the 
foundation  on  which  it  is  built  is  manifestly 
taken  away.  I  am  astonished  that  you  could 
make  such  assertions,  as  arc  found  in  your 
production  ;  assertions  that  you  must  have 
known,  no  consistent  divine  would  have  con- 
curred with  you  in. 

In  page  3d.  you  say  "  That  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  was  the  only  new  and  evcr^sting 
covenant  of  grace" — and  in  page  48th,  "  So 
the  covenant  with  Abraham  merits  the  atten- 
tion of  all  persons,  from  Adam  to  the  end  of 
the  world,  as  it  involves  the  salvation  of  every- 
one." How  can  it  merit  the  attention  of  those 
that  never  heard  of  it  ?  and  how  can  it  benefit 
those  that  never  partook  of  it  ?  I  never  saw  so 
much  ignorance  exhibited  in  so  few   words 


65 

before.  You  have  been  so  explicit  that  it  is 
impossible  for  us  to  mistake  you.  Your  de- 
claration amounts  to  this  :  that  God  the  Fa- 
ther made  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  embrac- 
ing his  seed,  promised  him  in  the  17th  chapter 
of  Genesis,  7th  verse  ;  which  covenant  you 
state  in  the  4th  page,  as  involving  the  salvation 
of  all,  from  Adam  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Jf 
indeed  this  were  a  truth,  we  are  as  miserable 
as  the  fallen  angels,  for  that  covenant  hath  long 
since  been  broken,  as  we  have  already  proved 
in  the  first  part  of  this  work  ;  and  we  need  not 
go  farther  at  any  time,  for  a  better  confirmation 
of  this  fact,  than  to  the  present  state  of  Abra- 
ham's natural  posterity.  We  have  reason  to 
bless  God,  there  was,  and  is,  a  far  better  cove- 
nant, than  that  of  circumcision  ;  and  a  far  bet- 
ter covenant  head,  than  Abraham.  But,  sir, 
we  will  give  you  the  credit  you  ask,  in  doing 
all  you  can  to  destroy  the  christian's  hope  and 
salvation  ;  which  you  have  done,  if  you  have 
established  your  point.  We  then  say  that  you 
have  entirely  excluded  Christ  as  having  any 
part  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  for  you  have  fail- 
ed proving  him  the  seed,  to  which  the  promise 
was  made  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision. 
We  grant  you  speak  ol  Christ,  but  that  you 
must  do,  to  give  currency  to  your  libel ;  for 
you  know,  ignorant  as  people  are,  they  will 
retain  Chiist,  either  in  whole,  or  in  part,  as 
their  saviour.  You  have  given  Abraham  the 
pre-eminence  of  Christ  in  page  49th.  "  If  the 
promise  was  not  made  to  Adam,  nor  the  ser- 
pent, who  was  it  made  to  ?   Answer  :  to  Abra- 


6± 

ham  and  to  Christ.'*  It  is  evident  that  you 
have  denied  Christ,  the  right  of  altering  his 
laws  and  ordinances  as  he  pleases  ;  and  you 
have  perverted  his  word  by  making  it  a  nose 
of  wax,  and  interpreting  it  to  suit  your  own 
purpose.  You  have  by  this  means  made  the 
inspired  writers  (as  far  as  you  were  able)  con- 
tradict themselves  and  each  other,  particularly 
in  the  grand  and  fundamental  part  of  our  holy 
religion.  You  affect  to  make  Paul  prove  your 
pernicious  doctrine,  a  doctrine  which  he  says, 
if  an  angel  from  heaven  preach,  let  him  be  ac- 
cursed. The  view  which  the  apostle  had  in 
writing  his  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  was  to  dis- 
suade them  from  teachers  who  taught  as  you 
do  ;  and  to  insist  uoon  the  important  doctrine 

1  » 

of  justification  by  faith.  You  cannot  be  justi- 
fied, (he  would  urge)  by  the  law,  either  moral, 
or  ceremonial ;  the  one  is  too  holy  for  your 
perfect  obedience  to  it ;  and  the  other  is  insuf- 
ficient, being  never  intended  for  justification. 
Its  appendages  and  ceremonies  were  only  ap- 
pointed to  prefigure  Christ,  that  sinners  might 
look  to  him  for  justification.  The  apostle 
elsewhere  calls  them  shadows  ;  and  circumci- 
sion was  one  of  them,  that  pointed  to  Christ, 
(as  we  have  shewn  before) ;  who  was  to  be  cut 
off,  as  Daniel  said  :  "  Messiah  shall  be  cut  off, 
but  not  for  himself."  Therefore  my  brethren, 
said  Paul,  you  must  be  justified  as  Abraham 
was,  by  faith.  God's  promise  to  Abraham,  ran. 
thus,  "  In  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth 
be  blessed  :"  Gen.  xit.  3  :  and  again,  Gen.  xv. 
5,  "  Tell  the  stars  if  thou  be  able  to  number 


65 

them,  and  he  said  unto  him,  so  shall  thy  seed  be." 
Abraham  believed  that  he  should  have  a  nume- 
rous offspring:  that  Christ  should  descend  from 
his  loins,  and  be  the  spiritual  head  of  a  numerous 
spiritual  offspring ;  that  these,  having  like  faith 
with  him,  should,  in  one  sense,  be  called  his  chil- 
dren, not  for  any  natural  alliance  to  him,  but 
for  the  faith  of  the  same  nature  with  his  and  for 
which  he  is  so  much  celebrated.  This,  Abra- 
ham believed,  and  this  belief  was  imputed  to 
him  for  righteousness.  And  that  man  who  is 
not  blinded  by  ignorance,  or  prejudice,  will 
cheerfully  acknowledge  that  this  is  the  blessing 
which  the  apostle  intended  ;  for  the  blessing 
of  circumcision,  (if  it  may  be  called  a  blessing) 
Was  by  the  express  command  of  God,  to  be 
confined  to  his  male  family,  sons  and  male 
servants  :  the  other  inhabitants  of  the  world 
were  excluded  from  the  rite,  and  therefore 
received  no  blessing  from  it.  How  you  could 
say  then,  that  the  covenant  made  with  Abra- 
ham, merited  the  attention  of  all,  to  the  end  of 
the  world,  is  a  m}rstery  to  me. 

Having  established  the  two  first  points  which 
I  undertook,  I  should  have  contented  myself 
without  bestowing  any  further  attention  upon 
your  pamphlet.  But  as  I  had  given  public 
notice  that  I  would  take  into  consideration 
your  work,  I  thought  if  nothing  were  said 
about  baptism  particularly,  the  ignorant  would 
be  confirmed  in  what  many  had  said,  viz. 
that  your  book  was  unanswerable,  and  the 
dispute  now  at  an  end.  I  shall  therefore  pro- 
ceed to  make  some  remarks  on  the  subject  of 
baptism  explicitly.     But  in  the  attempt  I  must 


66 

confess  that  I  feel  myself  small,  since  so  manv 
abler  pens  have  been  employed  so  successfully 
to  exhibit  this  interesting  subject  in  a  light,  at 
once  clear,  and  conclusive  from  the  force  of 
scriptural  evidence  and  cogent  reasoning. 

As  it  is  impossible  for  any  man  to  follow 
you  through  your  sophistry  ;  I  shall  only  take 
notice  of,  and  remark  on,  such  of  your  decla- 
rations, as  I  think  may  have  had  some  weight 
upon  the  unenlightened  part  of  the^community. 
And  I  am  the  more  induced  to  do  so,  because 
the  authors  on  the  subject  of  baptism  on  both 
sides  of  the  question,  are  not  generally  in  the 
possession  of  the  community  ;  and  because 
bold  assertion  does  more  with  many,  than 
sou.nd  reasoning  from  the  word  of  God.  Your 
talent  appears  to  lie  in  bold  assertion,  and  as, 
in  your  own  opinion,  you  are  the  oracle  of  the 
day,  it  would  be  well  to  point  out  some  more 
of  the  imperfections  of  the  piece  under  present 
consideration.  I  shall  first  take  notice  of  your 
remarks  on  the  first  church  existing  on  the 
earth,  contained  in  pages  4-8,  49.  You  there  say 
"  For  God  had  not  a  visible  church  on  earth, 
before  Abraham's  day."  "  Abraham  was  the 
first  member  on  earth."  You  must  mean  he 
was  the  first  member  of  God's  church  on  earth. 

In  order  to  know  whether  these  declarations 
of  yours  are  true,  or  not ;  our  first  inquiry  will 
be,  in  what  does  a  church  consist  ?  We  are  of 
opinion  that  a  particular  congregation  (or  num- 
ber) of  believers  in  Christ,  united  together  in 
the  order  of  the  gospel :  or  under  whatever 
form  of  worship  God  has  directed,  or  enjoined 


61 

upon  them,  constitutes  a  church.  According 
to  the  opinion  of  the  church  of  England  ;  the 
visible  church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of 
faithful  men,  in  which  the  pure  word  of  God 
is  preached,  and  the  sacraments  duly  adminis- 
tered. Entiek  says,  a  church  is  a  place  of  di- 
vine worship,  an  assembly  of  christians. 
Hooker — the  collective  body  of  Christ — Doc- 
tor Watts — the  body  of  christians,  adhering  to 
one  particular  form  of  worship.  And  Jesus 
Christ,  "  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  toge- 
ther in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of 
them."  Paul,  "  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  body, 
the  church  :"  Col.  i.  18.  And  again.  "The 
general  assembly  and  church  of  the  first  born, 
which  are  written  in  heaven  :"  Heb.  xii.  13. 
From  the  above  quotations  of  scripture,  and 
authors,  all  agree  in  this,  that  a  church  properly 
speaking,  consists  of  two  or  more  that  assemble 
for  the  pure  worship  of  God,  under  any  divine- 
ly appointed  dispensation.  Nothing  but  infi- 
delity will  dare  to  deny  this :  for  the  blessed 
Redeemer  hath  said  "  where  two  or  three  are 
gathered  together  in  my  name,"  whether  to 
believe  on  and  worship  him,  as  the  seed  of  the 
woman,  of  Abraham,  David,  cr  as  the  son  of 
God,  manifest  in  the  flesh,  it  amounts  to  the 
same,  if  they  are  gathered  in  his  name,  he  is  in 
the  midst  of  them  to  bless  them,  and  own  them 
as  his.  You  say  page  lGth,  a  "church  cannct 
exist  without  an  inward  spiritual  grace  :"  thus 
far  you  are  right :  "but  you  add  secondly,  with- 
out "  an  outward  visible  sign  also."  Where 
have  you  your  authority  for  this  declaration  ? 


68 

not  in  scripture  :  but  you  take  the  liberty  to 
make  the  component  parts  of your  church,  and 
your  book,  to  suit  your  own  scheme,  whether 
you  have  a  warrant  for  it  or  not. 

Moses  informs  us,  that  "  unto  Adam  also 
and  to  his  wife,  did  the  Lord  God  make  coats 
of  skins,  and  cloathed  them  :"  Gen.  iii.  21. 
We  are  of  opinion  that  the  skins  of  which  these 
coats  were  made,  were  the  skins  of  beasts  offer- 
ed in  sacrifice.  The  sacrifice  of  these  beasts 
we  think  were  typical  of  the  sacrifice  of  the 
promised  seed,  and  the  coats  of  skins  which 
they  furnished  weretypieal  of  the  righteousness 
of  the  seed,  which  God,  revealed  to  Adam  and 
Eve,  as  the  manner  in  which  they  were  to  be 
justified.  But,  whether  the  beasts,  from 
which  the  skins  were  taken  to  cloathe  Adam 
and  Eve,  were  sacrificed  or  not;  the  sacrifice 
of  beasts  from  that  time  became  the  method  of 
worship  ;  and  the  presumption  is  very  strong, 
that  it  must  have  been  ordered  by  the  Lord  at 
that  time  ;  and  this  we  prove  by  the  acceptable 
offering  of  Abel.  "  And  A  bel  he  also  brought 
of  the  firstlings  of  his  flock,  and  of  the  fat  there- 
of, and  the  Lord  had  respect  unto  Abel,  and 
to  his  offering:"  Gen.  iv.  4.  If  this  offering 
had  been  made  in  an  improper  manner  it  woNld 
not  have  been  accepted  ;  but  as  it  was  accept- 
ed, and  the  person  of  Abel  also  accepted,  the 
offering  and  the  service  must  have  been  by  the 
command  of  God ;  and  as  blood  was  spilt  in 
the  sacrifice,  it  evidently  pointed  to  the  shed- 
ding of  the  blood  of  the  seed  of  the  woman. 
Two  hundred  and  thirty- five  years  afterward, 


69 

id  the  days  of  Enos,  the  minds  of  God's  people 
were  more  enlightened.  They  then  not  only 
sacrificed,  but  implored  the  mercy  of  God  in 
Christ  Jesus,  the  seed  of  the  woman,  as  a  com- 
pany of  believers.  "  Then  began  men  to  call 
upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  :"  Adam  was  yet 
living,  and  no  doubt  led  in  the  worship.  All 
the  godly  also  in  that  day  worshipped  in  an 
acceptable  manner  as  God  had  directed,  and 
He  was  in  the  midst  of  them.  This  is  farther 
illustrated  by  the  sacrifice  of  Noah,  fourteen 
hundred  and  twenty  years  after  :  "  And  Noah 
builded  an  altar  unto  the  Lord,  and  he  took  of 
every  clean  beast,  and  of  every  clean  fowl,  and 
offered  burnt  offerings  on  the  altar.  And  the 
Lord  smelled  a  sweet  savour,  and  the  Lord 
said  in  his  heart,  I  will  not  again  curse  the 
ground  for  man,  &c. :"  Gen.  viii.  20.  21. 
How  could  Noah  without  divine  direction  have 
distinguished  between  the  clean  and  unclean 
animals  ?  And  without  an  observance  of  this 
direction,  would  the  sacrifice  offered  have  been 
accepted  ?  Permit  me  to  ask  further,  would 
God  have  directed  the  service  to  any  but  his 
acknowledged  people,  and  could  they  be  such, 
without  forming  his  church  or  a  part  of  it  ? 
Paul  told  his  Hebrew  brethren,  "  ye  are  come, 
to  the  general  assembly  and  church  of  the 
first  born  :"  xii.  22.  23.  Did  the  apostle  mean 
an)'  but  those  who  were  the  first  born  of  the 
spirit :  Adam,  Eve,  Abel,  Enos,  Enoch,  No- 
ah, and  others  of  their  days,  and  afterwards, 
before  Abraham  ?  Ignorance  itself,  yea  and 
infidelity  too,  will  allow  (if  thev  will  allow  any 


thing)  that  Abraham  was  born  long  after  this, 
therefore  he  could  not  have  been  the  first  born, 
and  the  first  born  agreeably  to  Christ  and  Paul, 
formed  the  first  visible,  and  acknowledged 
church.  Thus,  sir,  you  see  that  we  have  proven 
a  church  before  the  Rood,  another  after  it,  and 
before  Abraham  ;  and  your  first  church  with 
all  your  bold  assertions,  is  as  unfounded  as 
your  ideas  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

But  once  more  :  Jethro,  the  priest  of  Midi- 
an,  came  to  Moses  and  said,  "  Now  I  know 
that  the  Lord  is  greater  than  all  Gods,  for  in 
the  things  wherein  they  dealt  proudly,  he  was 
above  them  :  and  Jethro,  Moses'  fathtr-in-law, 
took  a  burnt  offering  and  sacrifices  for  God : 
and  Aaron  came,  and  all  the  elders  of  Israel  to 
eat  bread  with  Moses'  father-in-law  before 
God:"  Exo.  xviii.  11.  12.  Can  we  say  that 
Jethro  was  not  a  priest  of  God  ?  If  we  do,  we 
shall  charge  the  meek  Moses,  and  the  high 
priest  Aaron,  with  idolatry,  in  joining  in  a  sa- 
crifice that  was  improperly  offered  Job  is 
another  instance  of  God's  having  a  people  that 
worshipped  him,  exclusive  of  the  family  of 
Abraham  ;  and  Melchisedec  is  said  to  be 
priest  of  the  Most  High  God,  eighteen  years 
before  Abraham  was  commanded  to  observe 
the  rite  of  circumcision.  If  Melchisedec  was 
a  priest  of  God,  he  had,  no  doubt,  a  people 
among  whom  he  officiated,  whom  we  should 
consider  as  unquestionably  a  church  of  God. 
These  proofs  go  far  to  establish,  on  just  and 
correct  grounds,  the  existence  of  a  church  pre- 
vious to  Abraham's  day. 


71 

We  allow  to  faithful  Abraham,  the  friend  of 
God,  who  was  set  up  for  our  imitation,  (and 
would  to  God  we  were  better  able  to  follow 
him  in  his  holy  obedience)  all  that  the  scrip- 
ture ascribes  to  him ;  but  we  must  not  put 
him,  his  obedience,  or  any  thing  else,  in  the 
place  of  Christ.  We  therefore  say,  that  cir- 
cumcision, although  it  evidenced  his  obedi- 
ence, and  was  a  mark  of  distinction  to  his 
family,  was  intended  principally  as  a  type  of 
Christs*  sufferings.  It  was  a  command  to  be 
observed  by  Abraham's  posterity  until  Christ 
should  appear.  When  he  did  appear,  being 
one  of  that  posterity,  he  submitted  to  it  as  a 
part  of  his  obedience,  but  as  soon  as  He  the 
antytype  was  cut  off,  the  bloody  rite  to  whicli 
he  had  conformed  ceased  to  be  lawful,  and 
was  not  superceded  by  baptism  ;  otherwise, 
the  Jews,  and  Christ  himself,  who  had  sub- 
mitted to  that  rite,  (if  we  view  it  as  an  initiating 
rite*)  would  never  have  been  baptised.  IVlr. 
Wesley  had  the  same  view  of  circumcision  : 
he  says  "  circumcision  being  laid  aside,  which 
was  peculiar  to  males,  and  was  designated  to 
put  a  difference  during  that  dispensation  be- 
tween Jews  and  Gentiles. "f  But,  sir>  ^  is 
surely  ridiculous  to  suppose  that  God  directed 
an  ordinance,  (for  so  you  would  have  us  be- 
lieve) for  the  initiation  of  his  people  into  a 
church   capacity,  which  ordinance  could  not, 

•  If  circumcision  constituted  a  church  of  God,  then  the 
wicked  6ons  of  Jacob  constituted  a  church  of  God  among  the 
Hivites,  when  they  circumcised  Shechim,  and  the  men  of 
that  city. 

f  Notes,  2d.  toI.  p.  130. 


72 

from  the  very  nature  of  the  thing  itself,  be  ad- 
ministered to  more  than  one  half  of  the  mem- 
bers, for  surely  the  women  were  as  much 
members  of  the  church  in  the  wilderness,  as 
the  men.  Tell  it  not  inGath,  that  a  professed 
minister  of  the  gospel  should  charge  the  great 
head  of  the  church  with  such  an  error ;  least 
the  children  of  the  unbelieving  rejoice.  Paul 
bears  an  honorable  testimony  to  the  antedilu- 
vian worthies  :  Hcb.  xi.  4  to  7.  "  By  faith 
Abel  offered,  £<c."  *  By  faith  Enoch  was 
translated  "  "  Uy  faith  Noah  being  warned 
of  God  of  things  not  seen  as  yet,  moved  with 
fear,  prepared  an  ark  to  the  saving  of  his  house, 
by  the  which  he  condemned  the  world,  and 
became  heir  of  the  righteousness  which  is  by 
faith."  Here,  in  addition  to  the  testimony  of 
God  by  Moses,  an  apostie  bears  testimony  to 
their  faith  and  acceptance ;  and  calls  them 
"  the  church  of  the  first  born."  Their  faith 
was  fixed  upon  the  seed  of  the  woman,  which 
they  looked  for  with  as  much  assurance  as 
Abraham  did.  And  in  doing  so,  were  as  ac- 
ceptable as  he  was.  But  1o  tell  us,  that  Adam, 
and  those  before  Abraham,  looked  foi  the  seed 
of  Abraham,  (the  seed  of  a  man)  when  the 
first  intimation  given  of  that  seed,  on  which 
our  faith  is  to  be  fixed,  wasr  that  it  should  be 
the  seed  of  the  woman,  is  truly  ridiculous; 
unless  you  will  prove  that  all  the  believers  be- 
fore Abraham  were  prophets.  We  shall  con- 
clude this  subject  by  observing,  that  the  An- 
tediluvian church  had  the  same  faith  with 
Abraham  ;  that  it  was  placed  upon  the  same 


73 

object,  the  seed  of  the  woman  ;  and  that  it  was 
as  acceptable  to  God.  They  were  therefore 
saved  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  and  we  con- 
sequently adopt  your  words  and  say,  it  is  but 
cavilling"  to  say,  they  were  saved  by  believing 
in  the  seed  of  Abraham.  The  only  difference 
then  was,  that  Abraham  had  a  mark  in  the 
flesh,  which  they  had  not;  and  if  a  mark  in 
the  flesh  will  better  constitute  a  church  of  God, 
with  you,  than  spiritual  worship,  and  offer- 
ings in  faith  ;  you  may  go  on  and  be  made 
perfect  by  the  flesh  as  fast  as  you  can.  But 
remember,  *'  as  many  as  are  of  the  works  of 
the  law  are  under  the  curse." 

In  page  21,  you  say  "  They  (meaning  the 
baptists)  must  build  upon  circumcision  or  sup- 
position, if  they  claim  John's  baptism,  because 
i    he  was  not  baptized  but  circumcised."     This 
to  be  sure  is  a  very  grand  discovery,  and  may 
help  baby  baptism  a  little  longer.     You  have 
placed  us  in  a  dilemma  indeed,  if  you  are  to 
be  the  oracle,  bv  which  truth  and  error  are  to 
stand  or  fall.     Oh!  my  brethren,  what  shall 
we  do?  This  wonderful  Goliah  will   indeed 
prevail,  unless  David  with  his  sling  and  smooth 
stone  (truth)  should  come  to  our  help.     Let 
us  exercise  faith;  and  trust  in  him  who  hath 
said,  "  A  thousand   shall  fall  by  thy  side,  and 
ten  thousand  at  thy  right  hand  ;  but  it  shall 
not  come  nigh  thee  :"  Psa.xci.  7.  And  again, 
"  No  weapon  that  is  formed  against  thee  shall 
prosper ;   and   every    tongue    that    shall  rise 
against  thee  in  judgment  thou  shalt  condemn:" 
Isa.  liv.  17.     We  told  you  that  you  had  deni- 


74 

ed  Christ  the  right  of  altering  his  laws,  and 
establishing  such  ordinances  as  he  pleased. 
"  They  must :"  (what  arrogance  !)  "  build  up- 
on circumcision  or  supposition,  if  they  claim 
John's  baptism."  Why?  "  Because  John  was 
not  baptised,  but  circumcised. "  You  might 
as  well  have  said,  because  Christ  had  no  right 
to  alter  his  laws,  and  direct  what  ordinances 
he  pleased  for  his  people  to  observe. 

We  have  shewn  your  fallacy  in  attempting 
to  prove  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  to  be  the 
covenant  of  grace.  We  have  gone  far  to  prove 
the  existence  of  a  church  long  before  Abra- 
ham's day.  And  we  have  proven  that  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  was  a  seal  of  tempo- 
ral blessings  only,  as  it  respected  the  seed  of 
Abraham  ;  and  that  it  was  a  mark  of  distinc- 
tion to  that  family,  and  that  the  all- wise  God 
\\  ould  not  appoint  a  mark  of  church-member- 
ship, that  could  not  be  placed  upon  more  than 
half  of  its  members.  We  have  also  shewn, 
that  circumcision,  like  many  other  rites  under 
that  dispensation,  pointed  to  Christs'  death  ; 
and  must  necessarily  have  continued  until  that 
event  took  place  :  consequently  all  the  posteri- 
ty of  Abraham,  in  whose  person  the  rite  was 
established,  and  from  whom  Christ  was  to 
descend,  were  under  obligation  to  submit  to  it, 
or  be  cut  oft*  from  the  land.  John,  the  harbin- 
ger of  our  Lord,  was  one  of  that  posterity,  and 
therefore  submitted^  to  circumcision.  But, 
sir,  surely  you  will  not  venture  to  say,  that 
circumcision  disqualified  him  from  acting  in 
any  office  to  which  God  might  appoint  him : 


75 

Malachi  iii.  1.  "  Behold  I  will  send  my  mes- 
senger, and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before 
me."  Hear  die  testimony  of  an  angel  of  God. 
"  Fear  not  Zacharias,  for  thy  prayer  is  heard  ; 
and  thy  wife  Elizabeth  shall  bear  thee  a  son, 
and  thou  shalt  call  his  name  John,  for  he  shall 
be  great  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  and  shall 
drink  neither  wine,  nor  strong  drink  :  and  he 
shall  be  rilled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  from 
his  mothers  womb.  And  many  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  shall  he  turn  to  the  Lord  their 
God.  And  he  shall  go  before  him  in  the  spirit 
and  power  of  Klias,  to  turn  the  hearts  of  the 
fathers  to  the  children,  and  the  disobedient  to 
the  wisdom  of  the  just,  to  make  ready  a  peo- 
ple prepared  for  the  Lord  :"  Luke  i.  13.  17. 
Hear  the  beloved  disciple,  *'  There  was  a  man 
sent  from  God  whose  name  was  John."  Jesus 
speaking  to  the  multitude  of  John  the  Baptist, 
said.  "  A  prophet  ?  Yea,  I  say  unto  you, 
and  more  than  a  prophet."  John,  his  forerun- 
ner, as  his  minister,  was  to  inaugurate  him,  as 
the  first  gospel  minister,  under  the  new  gospel 
dispensation,  that  shalf  not  be  confined  to  the 
family  of  one  man  after  the  flesh,  and  those 
bought  with  his  money.*  He  was  also  "  to 
make  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord." 
How  ?  He  could  not  convert  them  ;  though 
he  might  be,  and  was  an  instrument  in  that 
work.  We  cannot  see  any  way  how  he  was  to 
make  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord, 

*  This  ia  a  lively  representation  of  Corl'3  rovenant  people ; 
all  bought  with  the  blood  of  Ch;i-.t,  such  only  Lciny  of  th$ 
spiritual  i  hurch  of  60(1. 


16 

better  than  to  teach  them  to  look  for  II im,  so 
long  promised,  as  at  hand,  and  baptize  them 
for  our  Lord,  as  he  would  not  baptize  any  him- 
self :  this  fact  the  devil  himself  will  not  deny. 
Our  Lord  said  he  is  more  than  a  prophet.  I 
confess  I  am  at  a  loss  how  to  understand  this 
grand  sentence,  but  in  one  way.  All  the  pro- 
phets before  John,  by  the  command  of  God, 
prepared  the  kings  of  that  nation,  by  anointing 
them  with  oil :  but  John  must  set  king  Jesus 
in  his  office  by  baptism.  "  God  himself  would 
anoint  him  with  the  oil  of.  gladness  above  his 
fellows."  "  Yet  have  I  set  my  king  upon  my 
holy  hill  of  Zion  :"  Psa.  ii.  6.  "  I  will  raise 
them  up  a  prophet  from  among  their  brethren 
like  unto  thee  :"  Deut.  xviii.  18.  "  For  he  , 
testifieth  thou  art  a  priest  forever  after  the  order 
cf  Melchisedec:"  Heb.  vii.  17.  The  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  was  more  than  any  prophet,  priest 
or  king — He  was  invested  by  the  gift  of  his  Fa- 
ther with  each  of  these  offices ;  and  they,  taken 
separately,  were  higher  than  any  that  went  be- 
fore him  ;  for  he  was  to  continue  in  them  for- 
ever. '*  Forever  a  priest  after  the  order  of 
Melchisedec."  God  therefore  sent  John,  more 
than  a  prophet,  to  perform  this  new,  and  to 
John,  highly  honorable  work  ;  and  farther,  he 
was  to  do  more  than  any  other  prophet  had 
done,  he  was  to  point  at  Christ  and  say,  "  Be- 
hold the  Lamb  of  God." 

But  John,  how  dare  you  baptize  ?  You  never 
were  baptised  !  Can  your  baptism  be  valid  ? 
Will  it  not  be  called  a  Jewish  washing  ?  and 
after  all  that  has  been  said  of  you,  and  you  have 


77 

said  of  yourself,  will  not  your  authority  be 
called  in  question  ?  Why.  as  to  a  Jewish  wash- 
ing, I  know  how,  and  when  that  was  perform- 
ed :  but  I  have  authority  from  the  highest 
tribunal  to  baptize*  not  to  wash  !  I  am  sent  to 
introduce  a  new  dispensation,  or  at  least,  pre- 
pare  a  way  for  it :  I  have  done  it  by  command 
with  an  ordinance  never  before  practised  on 
any  religious  occasion.  John,  your  character 
stands  high,  mind  what  you  say,  and  do  !  I 
say  that  I  am  sent  to  introduce  a  new  dispen- 
sation with  an  ordinance  never  before  practised 
upon  any  religious  occasion  :  and  as  to  my 
authority  being  disputed ;  I  have  a  commission 
from  the  king  of  kings,  the  Lord  God  Almigh- 
ty* who  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  come ;  who  will 
call  all  the  postherds  of  the  earth  to  account, 
for  disputing  his,  and  my  authority,  when  act- 
ing by  his  command.  Here  is. my  commission, 
read  it.  "  And  John  bare  record  saying,  I 
saw  the  spirit  descending  from  heaven  like  a 
dove,  and  it  abode  upon  him.  And  I  knew 
him  not;"  before,  "  but  he  that  sent  me  to  bap- 
tize with  watery  the  same  said  unto  me,  upon 
whom  thou  shalt  see  the  spirit  descending  and 
remaining  on  him,  the  same  is  he  which  bap- 
tizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  1  saw  and 
bear  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God  :"  Jno. 
i.  32.  33.  34.  John,  we  are  perfectly  satisfied 
with  your  credentials,  for  we  are  sure  none  but 
God  himself  could  have  told  you  of  the  descent 
of  his  holy  spirit  upon  his  Son.  We  shall  prac- 
tice as  you  have  done  in  that  ordinance  of  the 
new  Testament.     "  Then  cometh  Jesus  from 

G  2 


7S       ' 

Galilee  to  Jordan,  unto  John  to  be  baptized  of 
him.  But  John  forbade  him,  saying  I  have 
need  to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and  comest  thou 
to  me  ?  And  Jesus  answering,  said  unto  him, 
suffer  it  to  be  so  now,  for  thus  it  becometh  us 
to  fulfill  all  righteousness;  then  he  suffered  him. 
And  Jesus  when  he  was  baptized  went  up 
straightway  out  of  the  water:  and  lo,  the  heav- 
ens were  opened  unto  him,  and  he  saw  the  spirit 
of  God  descending  like  a  dove,  and  lighting  up- 
on him  :"  Matt.  iii.  13 — 16.  Here  we  have  as 
solemn  an  ordinance  as  ever  was  administered, 
and  that  too,  to  the  Son  of  God  !  nay,  to  God 
himself,  and  the  trinity  of  persons  approving  of 
it  in  the  highest  terms  :  "  And  lo,  a  voice  from 
heaven  saying,  this  is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom 
lam  well  pleased  :"  Vide,  17th  verse.  Still, 
notwithstanding  all  the  solemnity  attending  it, 
it  is  spoken  of  by  some,  in  the  most  degrading 
manner,  and  by  thousands  profaned. 

Will  you  have  the  hardiness  to  say  after  this, 
we  must  build  upon  circumcision,  or  supposi- 
tion ?  Did  not  John  receive  his  command  from 
God  ?  Did  Abraham,  could  Abraham  receive 
more  ?  Or  can  you  suppose  that  Abraham's 
being  circumcised,  invested  him  with  higher 
authority  than  God's  command  to  John  to.  bap- 
tize, conferred  on  him?  Vain  thought  indeed! 
Was  Moses  ever  washed,  or  anointed  with 
oil,  to  qualify  him,  for  the  washing,  and  anoint- 
ing of  Aaron  ?  Or  was  not  God's  command  on 
that  occasion,  deemed  sufficient  ?  Pray,  sir, 
why  art  thou  beside  thyself?  Moses  was  not 
washed,  was  not  anointed  with  oil,  to  qualify 


79 

him  for  the  work  God  commanded  him  to  do ; 
yet  we  have  not  heard  his  authority  called  in 
question,  nor  yet  Aaron's  consecration  dis- 
puted. "  But  John  was  not  baptized,  but  cir- 
cumcised :"  therefore  we  will  sprinkle  chil- 
dren. This  is  powerful  reasoning  indeed:  it  is 
reasoning  away  scripture  with  a  witness  ;  nay  I 
and  calling  in  question  the  authority  of  the 
great  head  of  the  church.  As  a  professed 
minister  of  the  gospel,  it  becomes  your  duty 
to  honor  God,  to  reverence  his  Son,  his  ordi- 
nances, and  inspired  servants,  and  in  a  very 
high  degree,  him  whom  he  himself  did  honor, 
as  the  harbinger  of  his  Son.  But  you  call  his 
authority  in  question  :  at  one  time  you  cal 
his  baptism  a  Jewish  washing,  at  another,  a 
type  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  page  77,  78.  It 
would  be  well  for  you  to  consider  seriously 
what  you  have  done,  and  pray  to  God  that 
none  of  the  evils  written  it\  his  book,  may 
come  upon  you  !  It  would  be  well  also  for 
our  opponents,  and  for  you  as  one  of  them, 
and  a  bitter  one  too,  to  have  some  consistency  ; 
it  would  surely  hold  you  up  a  little  longer. 
But  those  that  have  written  on  your  side  of  the 
question,  differ  from  themselves  and  each  other 
continually.  We  can  say  with  truth,  what  you 
have  said  without  it,  in  page  22d,  **  When  peo- 
ple are  driven  from  the  ground  on  which  they 
have  long  boasted  to  the  shifting  field  of  un- 
certainty, it  must  appear  that  their  foundation 
is  too  weak  to  support  them.  And  as  truth 
was  never  put  to  the  blush,  but  always  main- 
tained its  ground  against  error,  the  system  of 


so 

our  opponents,  in  this  point  is  found  inconsis- 
tent  with  itself."  Will  you  be  good  enough  to 
tell  me  the  name  of  the  baptist,  that  ever  shift- 
ed his  ground,  so  as  ;j  give  up  the  baptism  of 
Christ  administered  by  John  ?  But,  sir,  we  can 
give  names  of  our  opponents  of  the  highest 
respectability  for  learning,  and  talents,  that 
have  shifted  again,  and  again.  But,  sir,  why 
will  you  come  forward  to  vindicate  the  right  of 
infants?  you  must  be  aware,  that  the  ingenui- 
ty of  the  learned  world,  hath  not  been  able  to 
prove,  one  infant,  to  have  been  in  the  churches 
in  the  apostolic  day  :  and  we  venture  the  as- 
sertion they  never  will.  You  admit  God  had 
a  right  to  command  Abraham  to  circumcise, 
and  that  he  was  under  obligation  to  obey  :  He 
had  a  right  to  command  Moses  to  set  Aaron 
apart  to  the  priest's  office,  and  that  he  was  un- 
der obligation  to  obey  ;  although  Moses  had 
not  the  qualification  in  his  case,  that  you  re- 
quire of  John  in  his,  i.  e.  to  have  been  washed 
himself;  yet,  as  that  does  not  affect  baby  bap- 
tism, it  is  not  out  of  the  way  : — let  that  pass  ; 
we  here  see  plainly  what  prejudice  will  do. 

God  commanded  John  to  baptize,  and  that 
under  more  peculiar  circumstances  than  his 
commands  to  other  servants  of  his,  have  been 
given  :  but  you  say,  he  must  not  obey,  or  what 
is  worse,  (if  worse  can  be)  you  invalidate  his 
work.  u  Christ  was  not  baptized  with  John's 
baptism  :"  "John's  baptism  is  a  type  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  We  ask  you  seriously,  sir, 
when,  and  by  whom,  was  christian  baptism  in- 
troduced, if  John  did  not  introduce  it  ?  We. 


81 


defy  you,  sir,  or  any  of  your  brethren,  to  point 
out  the  person  that  first  administered  it ;  if 
John  the  Baptist  was  not  the  first  honored  ad- 
ministrator, of  that  holy  ordinance.  You  have 
read  Edwards,  until  you  have  sucked  in  his 
enmity,  as  well  as  his  arguments.  But,  sir, 
remember,  the  Jewish  nation,  with  all  their 
power,  and  learning — the  Roman  government, 
with  all  its  enmity  and  authority ;  aided  by  an 
unbelieving,  persecuting  world,  did  not,  could 
not,  overcome  our  blessed  Lord,  and  the  few 
baptists  he  had  collected  together,  from  the 
disciples  of  John.  A  few  fishermen  withstood 
the  world,  with  all  their  learning,  and  enmity  ; 
and  so  do,  and  so  will  v.?.  We  have  truth, 
reason,  and  God,  on  our  part ;  and  we  fear 
not  what  man  can  say  or  do.  "  Fear  not  little 
flock,  (not  Jewish  church)  it  is  your  Bather's 
good  pleasure  to  give  you  the  kingdom, " — 
Precious  Jesus !  how  comfortable  and  strength- 
ening were  thy  words  to  thy  little  flock  ! — 
when  surrounded  by  their  enemies,  Sanhe- 
drim, Priests,  Scribes,  Pharisees,  Sadduces, 
the  whole  Jewish  nation,  and  the  Roman  go- 
vernment !  supported  by  thee  they  weathered 
the  storm  !  thou  thyself  their  Captain.  So 
aid  us,  blessed  Jesus,  and  we  too  will  stand  up 
in  thy  cause,  and  triumph  under  thy  blessing. 
Your  low  shifts  and  serpentine  turns  are 
truly  ridiculous,  of  which  you  ought  to  be 
ashamed.  In  page  75,  you  say  :  "  Here  we 
request  you  particularly  to  notice  what  Paul 
said  of  John's  baptism,  i.  e.  that  it  is  a  baptism 
of  repentance.     Now  unless  Christ  could  have 


82 

repented  and  believed  on  himself,  he  could  not 
have  received  John's  baptism."  We  will  not 
be  surprised  after  this,  to  find  infidelity  abound 
in  our  land,  when  those  that  profess  themselves 
preachers  of  the  gospel,  and  that  with  uncom- 
mon zeal  too,  not  only  preach,  but  put  printed 
books  into  the  hands  of  the  people,  denying 
as  positive  facts  recorded  in  scripture,  as  words 
can  express.  Now,  unless  the  word  of  God 
be  false,  Christ  did  receive  God's  baptism, 
administered  by  John  ;  and  properly  called 
John's  baptism,  as  he  was  the  first  adrninis- 
trator  of  it;  and  believers  baptism,  as  they 
only  were  the  subjects  of  it ;  and  christian 
baptism,  because  Christ,  after  whom  they  are 
called,  was  a  partaker  of  it.  For  proof  of  this, 
read  the  third  chapter  of  Matthew.  It  seems 
to  offend  you  very  much  that  Christ  should 
call  upon  a  baptist  to  administer  the  holy  ordi- 
nance to  him  :  it  would  seem,  if  he  had  called 
upon  one  of  the  chief  priests,  (who  persuaded, 
the  multitude  that  they  should  ask  Barabbas, 
the  murderer)  to  have  washed  him,  it  would 
have  suited  you  better,  pleased  you  more  ;  and 
then  you  might  indeed  have  placed  us  in  a  di- 
lemma. But  John  the  Baptist  must  administer 
it,  and  such  is  your  displeasure  at  it,  that  rather 
than  have  people  believe  it,  least  they  should 
say  Christ  must  have  been  baptised  right,  and 
John's  baptism  must  be  proper,  because  Christ 
chose  him  for  the  honored  administrator  of  that 
ordinance  to  him  *v  you  will  contrary,  to  truth, 
say  he  did  not  receive  it.  May  God  of  his  infin- 
ite mercy  deliver  his  people  from  such  teachers. 


83 

We  say,  John's  command  was  received  by 
him  under  more  peculiar  circumstances  than 
Abraham's  or  Moses'.  From  eternity  God 
had  elected  a  church  in  Christ,  for  whom  he 
covenanted  with  Christ ;  they  were  to  be  the 
purchase,  and  the  reward  of  his  sufferings. 
Some  few  of  them  had  been  collected  during 
the  period  of  four  thousand  years  by  the  min- 
istry of  ungels,vand  prophets ;  but  in  that  space 
of  time  were  not  formed  into  a  proper  church 
state,  that  is  to  say,  they  were  not  brought  in- 
to a  congregational  relation.  The  time  at 
length  arrived  which  the  worthies  of  old  looked 
for,  but  died  without  the  sight  of.  ("  These 
all  died  in  the  faith,  not  having  received  the 
promises  :"  Heb.  xi.  39.)  On  the  approach  of 
this'glorious  acra,  John  was  miraculously  born, 
(being  sanctified  from  the  womb) ;  and  Christ 
miraculously  conceived  by  a  virgin.  God 
sent  John  as  the  forerunner  of  his  Son,  with  a 
special  commission  to  introduce  this  long  look- 
ed for,  and  new  dispensation ;  called, "  a  better 
testament."*  If  it  were  a  better  testament, 
than  the  old  one,  that  was  passing  away,  how 
could  it  be  the  same  ?  "  For  there  is  verily 
a  disannulling  of  the  commandment  going  be- 
fore, for  the  weakness  and  unprofitableness 
thereof."!  The  old  dispensation  was  weak 
and  unprofitable,  it  made  nothing  perfect,  it 
was  a  dispensation  of  types  and  shadows,  which 
was  never  intended  to  continue  permanently  ; 
but  only  until  the  mediator  of  a  better  cove- 
nant should  appear.     At  that  momentous  pe- 

*  Heb.  vii.  22.     |  viclc  18- 


riod  it  was  disannulled,  not  changed ;  yea  it 
waxed  old,  and  did  vanish  away  *  What  in 
the  name  of  common  sense  are  we  to  under- 
stand by,  "  a  better  testament,"  "  a  more  ex- 
cellent ministry,"  "  mediator  of  a  better  cove- 
nant, which  was  established  upon  better  pro- 
mises?'^ if,  after  all  the  preparation  of  the 
Trinity  for  four  thousand  years  ;  and  the  re- 
peated promises  of  God,  to  Christ,  and  his 
church,  of  a  far  more  excellent  and  extensive 
spread  of  the  gospel,  in  the  latter  clay,  when 
Christ  should  stand  upon  the  earuY'f — if  the 
new  dispensation  should  be  but  the  continua- 
tion of  the  same  old  dispensation,  "  the  same 
man  in  new  cloaths,"  or  the  old  Jewish  church; 
and  baptism  now  instituted  in  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision. The  clay  is  coming,  and  will  ap- 
pear, when  these  gross  errors  will  be  disclosed, 
and  reprobated. 

The  long  promised  day  had  arrived,  Christ 
had  descended  from  heaven  to  do  his  Father's 
will  :  "  I  come  to  do  thy  will  O  God  :" — "  to 
be  a  surety  of  a  better  testament,"  than  that 
under  the  law,  and  "  to  obtain  a  more  excel- 
lent ministry  ;"  than  Moses,  or  any  of  the 
fathers,  or  any  of  the  prophets  ever  had. 
"  And  he  is  the  mediator  of  a  better  covenant, 
than  ever  was  made  with  man.  Theirs'  were 
earthly,  "  wordly,"  "  carnal:"  and  the  apos- 
tle informs  us,  *•  stood  in  meats  and  drinks, 
and  divers  washings,  and  carnal  ordinances, 
(margin,    rites,   or   ceremonies)    imposed  on 

•  Keb.  viii.  13.         i  Vide  viii.  C         f  Job  six.  25. 


85 

them  until  the  time  of  reformation  :"  Heb.  ix. 
10.  Until  God  would  send  his  Son  and  effect 
a  reform,  from  a  woroly,  carnal  worship,  to  a 
purely  spiritual,  and  heavenly  worship.  This 
better  dispensation,  introduced  by  the  baptism 
of  John,  was  established  upon  better  promises. 
The  promises  under  the  old  dispensation,  as 
we  have  shewn,  were  temporal,  and  the  duties 
required  generally,  such  as  could  be  perform- 
ed by  wicked  men,  and  conditional :  "  If  ye 
obey,  ye  shall  eat  the  good  of  the  land."  The 
promises  under  this  new,  and  better  dispensa- 
tion, are  unconditional  and  far  better.  "  For 
if  that  first  covenant  had  been  faultless,  then 
should  no  place  have  been  sought  for  the  se- 
cond ;  for  finding  fault  with  them,  he  saith, 
behold,  the  days  come  (saith  the  Lord)  when  I 
will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of 
Israel  and  the  house  of  Judah  :  not  according 
(or  like)  to  the  covenant  that  I  made  with  their 
fathers  in  the  day  when  I  took  them  by  the 
hand  to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt, 
because  they  continued  not  in  my  covenant, 
and  I  regarded  them  not,  saith  the  Lord.  For 
this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the 
house  of  Israel,  after  those  days,  saith  the 
Lord :  7  will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind,  and 
write  them  in  their  hearts  ;  and  I  will  be  to 
them  a  God,  and  they  shall  be  to  me  a  people.'' 
Here  we  find  the  new  covenant,  called  new  as 
it  respected  Israel,  as  it  respected  the  new  ap- 
pearance of  the  glorious  covenant  head,  and  as 
it  respected  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  with 
all  its  promises,  which  were  as  we  have  shewn, 

H 


86 

the  land  of  Canaan,  and  temporal  blessing  ;  but 
especially  new  in  its  revelation,  and  operation. 
God  complains  that  they  had  broken  his  firut 
covenant,  and  well  they  might,  when  it  was 
made  with  man.  But  this  they  shall  not  break. 
Jesus  is  the  mediator  of  this  covenant,  the 
head  of  this  covenant  ;  for  his  sake  "  I  will  be 
their  God."  "  They  shall  be  my  people." 
This  is  a  permanent  covenant,  not  chaffy  like 
Mr.  R's.  that  "  the  least  breeze  of  truth  blows 
away."  The  world  was  no  doubt  in  great 
commotion,  at  the  opening  of  this  new  dispen- 
sation, and  well  it  might  be,  for  there  never 
were  two  such  men  on  earth  before.  John, 
my  faithful  servant,  saith  Jesus,  I  am  come  to 
thee  to  be  prepared  by  the  gospel  ordinance  of 
baptism,  f  ;r  my  ministry.  Thus  it  becometh 
tis,  both  of  us,  to  fulfil  all  righteous  (obedience.) 
I  am  sent,  sanctified  and  sent,  as  the  head  of 
my  church,  to  call,  sanctify,  and  save  them. 
h  is  the  Father's  will,  and  my  will,  that  I  be 
baptized.  He  sent  you  to  baptize  mey  he  told 
you,  you  should  see  the  heavenly  dove  descend 
upon  me.  It  will  descend  ;  it  then  behoves 
us  both,  to  act  agreeably  to  his  command;  I 
to  submit  to  this  gospel  rite,  and  you  to  ad- 
minister  it  to  me  :  hesitate  not.  Then  he  buf- 
feted him.  "  And  Jesus  when  he  was  baptized 
went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water  :  audio, 
the  heavens  were  opened  unto  him  and  he  saw 
the  spirit  of  God  descending  like  a  dove,  and 
lighting  upon  him."  After  he  entered  upon 
his  work  of  love  and  obedience,  did  he  bap- 
tize any  to  qualify  them  to  baptize  others? 


87 

.Vo,  he  did  not — he  called  those  that  John  had 
baptized,  to  be  his  disciples.  M  Again,  the 
next  day  after,  John  stood  and  two  of  his  disci- 
ples :  and  looking  upon  Jesus  as  he  walked,  he 
saitfr,  behold  the  Lamb  of  God.  And  the  two 
di*ciples  heard  him  speak,  and  they  followed 
Jesus  :"  Jno.  i.  35,  37.  These  were  Andrew, 
and  John,  which  are  named  by  him  as  his  dis- 
ciples,  and  stated  followers.  They  adminis- 
tered, what  you  call,  the  christian  baptism,  (for 
Jesus  baptized  not  but  his  disciples)  by  his 
command,  after  being  baptized  by  John  the 
Baptist. 

We  have  now  brought  you  to  the  christian 
church  :  we  have  proven  unequivocally,  that 
John  was  the  honored  instrument  to  prepare 
the  way  for  his  Lord  to  build  this  church,  by 
baptizing  both  him  and  his  disciples,  for  him. 
We  do  not  assert  he  baptized  them  all,  but 
can  you  prove  that  he  did  not  ?  We  have  pro- 
ven that  he  baptized  tvyo,  and  that  is  sufficient 
for  our  purpose.  They  were  properly  baptized 
by  John,  for  the  use  of  our  Lord.  (Who  was 
easier  satisfied  than  you  are.)  If  they  had  not 
been,  surely  we  should  have  heard  of  their  re- 
baptism,  and  then  our  Lord  would  have  been 
an  anabaptist,  as  well  as  the  apostle  Paul,  (who 
you  say  was  one)  but  in  this,  our  Lord  a  second 
time,  confirms  the  baptism  of  John.  And  here 
we  find  the  declaration  of  John  quickly  verifi- 
ed, "  He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease." 
The  disciples  of  John  left  him,  and  went  to  our 
Lord.  John  thereby  decreased,  and  Christ 
increased,  and  will  continue   to  increase   by 


88 

large  accessions  to  his  church,  until  the  consum- 
'mation  of  all  things.  But,  sir,  should  3-our 
doctrine  be  true,  we  are  all  in  an  error,  and 
have  been  for  nearly  eighteen  hundred  years  : 
Jesus  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples.  If  they 
were  not  baptized,  they  had  no  better  authority 
to  baptize  than  John  had.  If  they  were  bap- 
tized by  John,  then  his  baptism  is  valid  :  and 
if  they  were  not  baptized  by  John,  it  rests  with 
you  to  say  who  baptized  them.  For  it  is  evi- 
dent he  had  no  greater  authority,  as  God-man, 
to  command,  or  authorise,  than  he  had  as  God, 
or  than  his  heavenly  father  had  ;  and  we  have 
proved  that  John  was  commanded  by  God  the 
Father. 

We  now  call  upon  you  sir,  for  your  autho- 
rity for  baptizing,  for  we  understand  you  have 
divers  baptisms  ;  and  you  thereby  show  to  the 
world  you  are  still  under  the  law,  for  you  have 
not  attempted  to  prove  there  were  divers  lawful 
baptizms  under  the  gospel. 

We  shall  now  prove,  that  Paul  confirmed 
John's  baptism,  by  laying  hands  on  his  disci- 
ples— your  bug- bear  in  the  79th  page,  not- 
withstanding. You  ask,  "  But  will  not  some 
say  with  Mr.  Osborne,  they  were  not  baptized 
again,  but  Paul  confirmed  John's  baptism — An- 
swer :  We  are  unwilling  to  suppose  any  man 
of  common  understanding  can  think  so,  nor 
indeed  can  he,  without  destroying  the  gram- 
matical construction  of  words."  Why  are 
you  unwilling  sir  ?  Would  it  not  delight  you 
to  expose  the  baptists?  If  we  may  judge  of 
others,  by  your  conduct  to  John,   we  are  of 


83 

opinion  nothing  would  please  you  better.  Bur 
perhaps  you  aie  unwilling  we  should  come  to 
reasonable,  and  scriptural  investigation  of  that 
passage.  I  confess,  sir,  that  I  have  no  preten- 
sion, to  great  accuracy  in  grammar.  But  I  will 
put  your  grammar,  and  penetration  in  scrip- 
ture, to  the  touchstone  of  truth  and  reason. 
This  is  the  best  rule,  the  best  grammar  :  Acts. 
xviii.  24.  "  And  a  certain  Jew  named  A  pol- 
ios, born  at  Alexandria,  an  eloquent  man,  and 
mighty  in  the  scriptures  came  to  Ephesus  :  25. 
This  man  was  instructed  in  the  way  of  the 
Lord  ;  and  being  fervent  in  the  spirit,  he  spake 
and  taught  diligently  the  ways  of  the  Lord, 
knowing  only  the  baptism  of  John  :  26.  And 
he  began  to  speak  boldly  in  the  synagogue. 
Whom  when  Aquilla  and  Piiscilla  had  heard, 
they  took  him  unto  them,  and  expounded  unto 
him  the  way  of  God  more  perfectly  :  27.  And 
when  he  was  disposed  to  pass  into  Achaia,  the 
brethren  wrote,  exhorting  the  disciples  to  re- 
ceive him."  It  is  evident  from  this  passage 
of  scripture,  that  the  baptizm  of  John,  signi- 
fies a  Christ  to  come,  and  by  no  meanS  intends 
a  distinct  baptism,  from  the  new  testament 
baptism,  the  christian  baptism. 

Let  us  now  .attend  to  that  passage  :  Acts.. 
xix.  1.  "  And  it  came  to  pass  while  Apol- 
los  was  at  Corinth,  Paul  having  passed  thi(  ugh 
the  upper  coasts,  came  to  Ephesus  ;  aid  find- 
ing certain  disciples,  2 — He  said  unto  them, 
"  Have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye 
believed?  And  they  said  unto  him,   we  have 

not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  Le  any 
tu 


so 

Holy  Ghost :  3 — And  he  said  unto  them,  trrv 
to  what  then  uvre  ye  baptized  ?  and  they  said 
unto  John's  baptism  :  4 — Then  said  Paul"  I 
will  here  pause  to  inquire,  why  Paul  did  not 
now,  address  them  as  he  had  done  before .' 
and  why  this  fourth  verse  did  not  begin  as  the 
third,  and  second  did,  or  whether  the  gram, 
matical  construction  would  have  been  in  the 
least  injured  had  this,  in  the  stead  of  "  then 
said  Paul"  read,  'and  he  said  unto  them  :'  I 
conceive  not ;  and  had  he  thus  begun  this 
fourth  verse,  it  would  have  altered  the  case 
materially,  "John  verily  baptized  with  the  bap- 
tism of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people  that 
they  should  believe  on  him,  which  should  come 
after  him,  that  is  on  Christ  Jesus  :  5 — When 
they  heard  this  they  were  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus :  6 — And  when  Paul  had  laid* 
his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on 
them  ;  and  they  spake  with  tongues,  and  pro- 
phesied." 

We  have  before  us  in  this  account,  three 
parties,  i.  e.  Paul,  John's  disciples,  and  the 
Ephesians. 

Paul :  Have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost, 
since  ye  believed?  John's  disciples  :  We  have 
not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be  any  Ho- 
ly Ghost ;  we  have  lived  in  a  remote  place 
from  Jerusalem,  and  have  never  seen  any  of 
the  disciples  of  Christ  but  of  our  own  compa- 
ny. ( Apollos  perhaps  and  others)  and  would  be 
glad  of  instruction  upon  that  subject,  and  would 
willingly  receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  Paul 
said  unto  them,  unto  what  then  were  ye  bap- 


tized?  (I  perceive  ye  are  believers.)     John's 
disciples  :  unto  (or  with)  John's  baptism. 

44  Then  said  Paul,"  (and  I  very  believe  he 
now  addressed  tie  Ej  lesions)  '4  John  verily 
baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  say. 
ing  unto  the  people"  (to  whom  he  preached  or 
whom  he  was  to  baptize)  "4  that  they  should 
believe  on  him  which  should  come  after  him, 
that  is  on  Christ  Jesus."  Now  before  we  pro- 
ceed any  further,  we  will  ask,  if  common  sense 
will  admit  that  Paul  knew  how,  and  in  what 
manner  John  baptized  ;  as  well  as  those  that 
were  baptised  by  him.  All  that  Paul  knew? 
about  John  and  his  baptism,  was  by  hearsay  ; 
"what  John's  disciples  knew,  was  by  experience. 
I  will  a-k  again,  if  Paul  was  so  destitute  of 
common  sense  as  to  inform  men  of  any  thing 
they  were  better  acquainted  with  than  he  was; 
and  if  it  is  not  far  moie  reasonable  and  fully  a* 
grammatical,  to  believe  that  Paul  was  address- 
ing the  Ephesians  in  the  4ch  and  5th  verses, 
informing  them  of  John's  method  of  baptism, 
and  assuring  them,  that  although,  since  the 
resurrection  of  our  Lord,  we  baptize  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity,  it  was  not  so  before  ;  for 
all  that  were  baptized  before  the  suffering  of 
our  Lord,  could  not  be  baptized  otherwise 
than  as  in  a  Saviour  to  suffer.  If  they  had  been 
baptized  in  any  other  way,  they  would  not 
have  given  the  ordinance  its  proper  significa- 
tion ;  and  they  would  in  effect,  have  witnessed 
a  falsehood,  but  since  he  has  suffered,  he  left 
command  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity; 
and  these  men,  like  the  eloquent  Apollos,  liav- 


92 

irgbccn  Tar  from  us  the  apostles  of  our  Lord, 
aod  having  nut  had  an  opportunity  of  better 
b.  struct  ion  :  receive  them  therefore  into  \o'ur 
f  How -i .!|i,  and  treat  them  as  brethren.  But 
er,  if  cur  construction  of  this  passage  is 
Wrong,  t!  e  apostle  must  have  In  en  guiltv  of 
an  tin  r.  that  we  are  sure  he  was  not  capable 
cf;  thai  is  of  baptizing  them  as  John  had  done. 
We  hear  of  no  in*tni<  tion  given  to  them  bv  tne 
apostle,  respecting  the  difference  of  a  coming, 
and  a  crucified  saviour,  (surely  an  apostle 
would  not  have  been  less  diligent  in  his  instruc- 
tion, than  a  private  christian  and  his  wife  had 
b' en  with  Apollos)  of  the  difference  of  Christ 
Jesus,  and  the  Trinity;  but  simply  '•  when  they 
heard  this,"  (which  they  knew  better  than  he 
that  told  them  did,  if  it  was  them  he  spoke  to) 
"  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus."  I  ask  what  is  the  difference  between 
"  Christ  Jesus"  and  "  Lord  Jesus."  It  is  evi- 
dent beyond  contradiction,  jhat  the  4th  and  5th 
verses  of  this  chapter,  were  addressed  to  the 
l.phesians,  and  not  to  John's  disciples ;  and  it 
is  farther  evident  that  the  apostle  would  not 
have  baptized  them  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  when  the  command  of  our  Lord  was, 
to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity. 

If  he  did  baptize  them  thus,  he  violated  the 
command  of  Christ,  (this  we  cannot  believe) 
ai  d  the  poor  disciples  were  no  better  instruct- 
ed, consequently  no  better  baptized  by  ah 
apostle,  than  they  had  been  By  John,  or  one  of 
his  disciples.  If  you  could  make  it  appear 
that  Paul  baptized  in  u  different  way  rom  John, 


9'3 

it  might  answer  you  some  purpose;  but  until 
you  can  prove  that  John  baptized  without  au- 
thority from  God,  your  arguments  will  only 
serve  to  shew  your  enmity  to  the  ordinance  of 
Christ.  If  John's  disciples  were  re- baptized 
a  thousand  times,  it  will  by  no  means  destroy 
his  authority,  as  he  received  it  from  God. 
Their  not  having  heard  of,  or  received  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost,  is  not  at  all  surprising,  as  they  had 
not  been  at  Jerusalem.  And  what  you  oifer 
as  a  reason  why  Paul  asked  the  question,  i.  e. 
"  That  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given 
before,  or  after  baptism,"  is  not  true,  as  it  was 
by  the  laying  on  of  the  apostles  hands  generally, 
that  that  gift  was  given ;  and  there  is  no  instance 
of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  given  to  any,  only 
in  the  presence  of  an  apostle,  except  Paul,*  who 
was  to  be  an  apostle.  Why  did  the  apostles 
send  Peter,  and  John  to  Samaria  ?  Philip  had 
baptized  there,  both  men  and  women,  and  they 
had  not  received  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  reason 
was,  it  was  given  only  by  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  one  of  the  twelve. 

Verse  6.  u  And  when  Paul  had  laid  his 
hands  on  them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  upon 
them  and  they  spake  with  tongues  and  prophe- 


*  Suppose  it  should  be  denied  that  Paul  was  regularly  bap- 
tized, and  his  baptism  called  in  question  by  an  infidel,  how 
would  you  prove  that  Ananias  was  baptized  ?  1  should  say  God 
commanded  him,  and  that  was  sufficient,  whether  he  was  bap- 
tized or  not:  yo\i  will  say  he  was  a  disciple,  so  were  the 
twelve  that  were  at  Ephesus  ;  we  might  demand  who  baptized 
Peter,  and  Philip  ;  but  for  my  part  I  am  not  disposed  to  doubt 
tlte  authority  of  any,  who  acted  in  the  apostolic  day  by  the 
command  of  God ;  neither  do  I  apprehend  it  the  greatest  mark 
of  piety,  in  any  that  do  it, 


M 

sied."  Why  was  it  not  said  they  were  baptized 
In  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  H  >ly 
Ghost  ?  But  not  a  wo»d  of  it  :  it  is  therefore 
evident  that  they  were  not  re-baptized,  but  that 
their  baptism  was  confirmed  by  Paul,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Tne  piety,  and  obedience  of  the 
apostle,  forbid  the  belief  that  they  were  re- 
baptized  ;  for  he  would  in  that  act,  have  called 
in  question  the  authority  of  God,  as  you  have 
done  ;  and  invalidated  the  baptism  of  our  bles- 
sed Lord,  and  two  of  his  disciples  at  least,  if 
not  the  whole  of  them.  As  you  are  the  stan- 
dard by  which  the  word  of  God  is  to  be  deci- 
ded, will  you  inform  us  who  it  was  that  re- 
baptized  Apollos?  "that  eloquent  man  that 
was  mighty  in  the  scriptures  ;  instructed  in 
the  way  of  the  Lord  ;  fervent  in  the  spirit ;  but 
still,  knew  only  the  baptism  of  John." 

We  cannot  forbear  smiling  to  find,  after  you 
have  derided  us,  by  calling  us  anabaptists, 
you  very  gravely  tell  us,  Paul  was  an  anabap- 
tist ;  and  for  once,  admit  we  have  done  right, 
as  we  practise  as  you  suppose,  the  apostle  did. 
But  this  we  do  not  suppose  you  intended  as  a 
compliment,  consequently  we  give  you  no  cre- 
dit lor  it. 

Your  very  light  expressions,  when  speaking 
of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  do  you  no 
credit ;  and  your  comparing  the  sound,  that 
proceeds  from  your  sinful  heart  and  lips,  to  the 
sound  as  of  a  mighty  rushing  wind,  occasioned 
by  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  so  filled 
with  enmity,  if  not  blasphemy,  that  I  know  not 
what  to  say  of  it.     Your  words  are  in  page  68^ 


V5 

uTf  sound  were  immersion,  all  whom  we  bap. 
tized  would  be  immersed:  as  we  geneially 
speak  loud  enough  for  the  sound  to  fill  the 
house,  yet  the  water  only  falls  on  those  uho 
are  baptized.  So  it  was  at  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost :  the  sound  filled  the  house,  but  the  Holy 
Ghost  sat  only  on  each  of  them  like  cloven 
tongues  of  lire."  Surely  in  this  as  in  most 
other  things- in  your  book,  yen  are  endeavor- 
ing to  lead  your  admirers  into  error :  you 
would  have  your  readers  believe  that  the  sym- 
bol of  fire,  was  a  common  thng  when  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost  was  communicated,  i  ut,  sir,  it  is 
not  the  fact :  the  Holy  Ghost  was  communi- 
cated in  a  variety  of  instances,  whtn  there  was 
not  the  least  visible  appearance, ;  nay,  the  in- 
stance recorded  in  Acts  is  the  only  instance  of 
the  appearance  of  fire  in  the  new  testament, 
at  the  time  of  the  giving  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Thus  you  endeavor  to  deceive,  by  keeping 
back  part  of  the  sacred  texts. 

Our  blessed  Lord  in  his  last  interview  with 
his  disciples  told  them  that  "  They  should  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days 
thence:"  Acts.  i.  5.  And  accordingly  they 
were  baptized  with  it.  For  on  the  memora- 
ble day  of  Pentecost,  whilst  "  they  were  all 
with  one  accord  in  one  place,  suddenly  tl  eie 
came  a  sound  fr  m  heaven  as  <  f  a  rrshirg 
mighty  wi»  d,  ai  d  it  fill  d  all  the  house  where 
they  were  sitting  :  and  there  appeared  ui  to 
them  eleven  tongues  like  as  of  fire,  a:  d  it  sat 
upon  each  of  them  :"  Acts.  ii.  1 — 3.  It  is  ve- 
ry  evident  from  this  passage  that  the  Loly 


96 

Ghost  did  not  descend  in  a  wind ;  and  it  is 
equally  evident  that  no  wind  filled  the  house, 
for  it  is  said  that  "  the  sound  as  of  a  rushing 
mighty  wind  filled  the  house."  This  is  a 
comparison  only,  a  likening  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
in  his  descent  to  the  noise  of  a  rushing  mighty 
wind.  The  sound  was  evidently  significant  of 
the  approach  of  the  spirit,  and  a  mode  of  his 
descending,  as  the  cloven  tongues  of  his  ap- 
pearance to  their  sight. 

Now  as  a  rushing  mighty  wind  is  irresisti- 
ble in  its  course,  and  necessarily  surrounds 
and  overwhelms  the  objects  with  which  it 
meets,  it  is  a  most  fit  emblem  of  the  spirit's 
operations  on  the  mind.  For  in  these  opera- 
tions, the  whole  soul  is  the  subject,  being 
transformed  and  renewed  altogether.  If  a  ves- 
sel containing  certain  substances,  be  filled 
with  water,  those  substances  will  certainly  be 
covered  over  with  the  water.  Now  as  the 
body  is  represented  to  be  the  temple  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  soul,  which  it  contains,  must 
be  completely  overwhelmed  in  a  spiritual  sense 
by  his  operations  :  therefore  the  comparison 
above  instituted  is  appropriately  selected  for 
the  purpose  of  illustrating  the  ordinance  of 
water  baptism. 

In  relation  to  the  cloven  tongues  as  of  fire, 
it  is  stated  that  "  it  sat  upon  each  of  them." 
The  "  it"  evidently  refers  not  to  the  tongues, 
but  to  the  fire  diffusing  itself  in  appearance 
over  them  in  the  form  of  those  torgues.  And 
as  no  particular  part  is  mentioned  as  the  seat 
of  the  fire  or  of  the  tongues,  it  mav  be  rational- 


91 

\y  supposed  that  a  lambent  flame  in  appearance 
rested  on  and  enveloped  them,  presenting  the 
forms  as  of  cloven  tongues. 

In  the  same  page,  (68th)  you  say  M  Butter- 
worth  and  Taylor,  in  their  concordances  agree 
on  this  point,  saying  baptism  is  put  for  the 
affusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Butterworth's 
words  are,  "  Baptism  is  (1.)  An  ordinance  of 
the  new  testament,  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ, 
whereby  a  professed  believer  in  Christ,  is,  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  immersed  in,  and  covered 
with  water ;  and  then  is  raised  out  of  it,  as  a 
sign  of  his  fellowship  with  Christ  in  his  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection,  and  a  sign  of  his  own 
death  to  sin,  and  resurrection  to  newness  of 
life  here,  and  life  eternal  hereafter;"  (2)  it  is 
put  for,  the  plentiful  effusion  of  the  grace  and 
gifts  of  the  holy  spirit :  (3)  the  overwhelming 
sufferings  of  Christ :  (4)  a  vital  union  to  ana 
one-ness  with  Christ,  by  sovereign  love,  and 
the  all-pervading  operations  of  the  holy  spirit.'* 

In  page  76,  you  say,  "  To  shew  what  he 
{meaning  Christ)  was  baptized  for."  "it  was 
to  fulfil  the  law  of  the  Levitical  Priesthood : 
for  when  Christ  came  to  John  to  be  baptized, 
he  was  surprised,,"  If  he  was  surprised,  it  is 
easily  accounted  for.  That  the  Son  of  Gcd 
should  condescend  to  be  baptized  by  one  of 
his  fallen  creatures,  was  an  act  of  such  conde- 
scension, that  we  ought  to  think,  speak,  and 
write  of  it,  with  reverence  and  astonishment 
indeed.  If  the  angels  in  heaven  were  silent, 
when  they  beheld  the  amazing  works  cf  God  ; 


98 

much  more  ought  we  mortal  men  to  be  astonish- 
ed to  think  of  the  condescension  of  the.  Son  of 
God,  in  humbling  himself  to  submit  to,  and 
partake  of,  the  same  ordinance  with  his  rebel- 
lious creatures.  We  would  have  thought  that 
John's  surprise  would  not  have  permitted  you 
to  believe  that  Christ  went  to  him  to  be  bap- 
tized to  fulfil  the  Levitical  law ;  (if  indeed  he 
was  surprised,  though  I  read  nothing  of  it ;  it 
may  be  so  however  in  your  testament ;)  for  it 
was  not  uncommon  among  the  Jews  to  wash 
their  priests;  nay,  they  could  not  officiate  with- 
out it.  It  is  therefore  very  unreasonable  to 
suppose  that  he  was  surprised,  if  that  had  been 
the  fact.  It  was  true  they  were  not  washed  in 
rivers,  but  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle.  From 
hence,  however,  the  surprise  might  have 
arisen. 

I  will  now  point  out  the  absurdity  of  your 
declaration  ;  and  show  the  enmity  you  have  to 
the  ordinance  of  Christ.  We  will  show  how 
the  priests  under  the  Levitical  law  were  conse-. 
crated  :  Exo.  xxix.  4.  "  And  Aaron  and  his 
sons  thou  shalt  bring  unto  the  door  of  the  taber- 
nacle of  the  congregation,  and  shall  wash  them 
with  water :  v.  5.  And  thou  shalt  take  the 
garments,  and  put  upon  Aaron  the  coat,  and  the 
robe  and  the  ephod,  and  the  breast  plate,  and 
gird  him  with  the  curious  girdle  of  the  ephod: 
v.  6.  And  thou  shalt  put  the  mitre  upon  his 
head,  and  put  the  holy  garment  upon  the  mitre: 
v.  7.  Thou  shalt  then  take  the  anointing  oil, 
and  pour  it  upon  his  head  and  anoint  him  :  v. 
8.     And  thou  shalt  bring  his  sons  and  put 


99 

coats  upon  them  :  v.  9.  And  thou  shalt  gird 
them  with  girdles  (Aaron  and  his  sons)  and 
put  the  bonnets  on  them  ;  and  the  priest's  office 
shall  be  theirs  for  a  perpetual  statute." 

Now,  sir,  tell  us  if  it  would  be  lawful  to  con- 
secrate a  priest  in  any  other  way.  It  is  true, 
j'ou  are  not  very  particular,  but  would  you 
have  had  a  hand  m  consecrating  any  other 
priest,  but  Jesus  Christ,  in  any  other  way  than 
is  here  commanded:  or  have  you  read  any 
thing  like  this  taking  place  on  the  banks  of  Jor- 
don.  When  our  Lord  put  the  question  con- 
cerning the  baptism  of  John  to  the  chief  priests 
and  elders — "  the  baptism  of  John,  whence  was 
it,  from  heaven  or  of  men  ?"  Why  did  they  not 
say,  ■  of  the  fathers — it  was  a  Jewish  washing  : 
we  demand  an  answer  in  the  fear  of  God. 
They  must  have  known  better  than  you  can, 
for  they  were  upon  the  spot.  What  was  their 
answer — carnal  reason  and  self  prevailed,  as  they 
do  now — "we  cannot  tell."  Why  could  they 
not  tell  ?  The  fact  was,  they  knew  it  was  from 
heaven  as  well  as  you  do !  "  but  they  reason- 
ed" (like  too  many  now  do)  "  with  themselves, 
saying,  if  we  shall  say,  from  heaven  ;  he  will 
say  unto  us,  why  did  ye  not  then  believe  him  ? 
But  if  we  shall  say  of  men;  we  fear  the  peo- 
ple, for  all  hold  John  as  a  prophet."  Here  we 
have  the  very  reason  why  John's  baptism  is 
now  disputed.  "  If  we  shall  say  it  is  from 
heaven,"  honest  men  will  say,  why  do  ye  then 
act  contrary  to  his  example  ?  why  do  ye  bap- 
tize any,  but  such  as  do  bring  forth  fruit  meet 
for  repentance  ?  You  very  well  know  that  John 


100 

would  not  baptize  the  children  of  Abraham, 
as  such,  nor  any  that  did  not  profess  repen- 
tance. And  rather  than  men  will  convict 
themselves,  and  give  room  to  others  to  charge 
them  with  acting  contrary  to  their  own  opinion ; 
they,  like  the  priests  and  elders  will  say,  we 
cannot  tell ;  or  rather  worse,  not  fearing  the 
people,  nor  God  himself!  it  is  a  Mosaic  rite  ! 
it  is  a  Jewish  washing  !  it  was  under  the  law, 
it  is  not  the  christian  baptism  !  May  the  great 
head  of  the  church,  look  mercifully  upon  such, 
and  cause  them  to  turn  from  the  error  of  their 
ways. 

Why  did  the  priests  and  Levites  send  mes- 
sengers to  John,  to  ask  him  who  he  was  ?  If 
his  baptism  had  been  a  common  priestly  wash- 
ing ;  surely  they,  who  had  been  themselves 
washed  for  their  office,  could  not  have  been 
strangers  to  the  law  of  Moses,'  and  the  ceremo- 
nies practised  upon  such  an  occasion  !  They 
well  knew  there  was  an  ordinance  introduced, 
never  before  practised,  and  they  declare  this  to 
all  who  will  read  the  narrative  by  their  interro- 
gations. "  And  they  said  unto  him,  who  art 
thou,  that  we  may  give  an  answer  to  them  that 
sent  us  ;  what  sayest  thou  of  thyself?  And  he 
said,  I  am  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wil- 
derness, make  straight  the  way  of  the  Lord,  as 
said  the  prophet  Esaias.  And  they  asked  him 
and  said  unto  him,  why  baptizest  thou  then, 
if  thou  be  not  that  Christ,  nor  Elias  neither 
that  prophet :"  Jiio.  i.  22,  23,  25.  Mark  ! 
■  **  Why  baptizest  thou  then,  if  thou  be  not  that 
Christ?"  This  is  a  proof  of  two  important 


101 

facts. — First,  that  the  baptism  of  Christ  was 
not  a  Jewish  washing. — Second,  that  baptism, 
as  a  religious  rite,  was  never  practised  before. 
]f  the  washing  of  the  priests  for  fourteen  hun- 
dred and  ninety  years  had  been  done  in  the 
way  that  John  baptized  our  Lord  ;  is  it  net 
very  surprising  that  the  land  of  Judah,  and  Je- 
rusalem should  be  in  such  consternation !  and 
is  it  not  very  remarkable  that  we  have  not  read 
of  God's  judgments  upon  them  for  the  viola- 
tion of  his  law  !  "  Uzzah  put  forth  his  hand 
to  the  ark  of  God,  and  took  hold  of  it,  for  the 
oxen  shook  it.  And  the  anger  of  the  Lord 
was  kindled  against  Uzzah,  and  God  smote 
him  there  for  his  error,  and  there  he  died  by  the 
ark  of  God  :"  2  Sam!,  vi.  6,  7'  The  crime 
of  this  young  man  was  not  equal  to  the  change 
of  the  washing  of  the  priests,  as  recorded  in 
the  29th  chapter  of  Exodus  :  but  we  find 
God's  judgment  executed  against  him  ;  and. 
surt'y  if  the  priests  had  deviated  from  the 
law,  we  should  have  read  of  their  punishment 
also.  But  they  never  had  baptized  any  for 
the  priest's  office  ;  they  had  washed  them  at 
the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation, 
according  to  the  command  of  God  to  Moses., 
And  the  introduction  of  baptism,  was  one  cause 
why  they  thought  Join  must  be  the  Christ,  it 
never  having  been  performed  before. 

It  would  be  well,  if  professors  of  religion 
would  read,  and  well  consider  the  case  of  Uz- 
rah,  and  particularly  ministers  of  the  gospel. 
If  God  smote  this  young  man,  for  an  act  that 
appeared  really  laudable,    and  praise-  worthy, 

12 


102 

and  done  in  his  zeal  for  the  preservation  of  the 
ark  of  God,  because  it  was  contrary  to  law ; 
how  ought  men  to  fear  in  this  day  of  greater 
light  ?  not  only  to  act  themselves,  but  teach 
others  to  act,  contrary  to  the  gospel.  It  would 
be  well  for  them  frequently  to  read,  and  medi- 
tate seriously  on,  the  words  of  the  apostle 
Paul:  Heb.  viii.  5  and  x.  28,  29  and  xii.  25, 
to  29.  "  See  that  ye  refuse  not"  to  obey  the 
commands  of  "  him  that  speaketh  :  for  if  they 
escaped  not,  who  refused  him  that  spake  on 
earth,"  (Moses)  "  much  more  shall  not  we  es- 
cape, if  we  turn  away  from  him  that  speakest 
from  heaven,"  (Christ.)  But  what  authority 
had  John  to  wash  our  Lord  for  the  priest's  of- 
fice ?  He  was  not  of  the  priestly  tribe,  but  of 
the  kingly.  "  For  the  priesthood  being 
changed,"  (from  the  tribe  of  Lej'i,  to  the  tribe 
of  Judah)  "  there  is  made  of  necessity  a  change 
also  of  the  law."  Why  is  there^of  necessity 
a  change  of  the  law  ?  or  of  the  dispensation  ? 
Answer:  "The  law  made  nothing  perfect :" 
Heb.  vii.  19.  And  if  perfection  were  by  the 
Levitical  priesthood,  (for  under  it  the  people 
received  the  law)  what  further  need  was  there 
that  another  priest  should  rise  after  the  order 
of  Melchisedcck,  and  not  be  called  after  the  or- 
der of  Aaron  ?  Thus  you  see,  that  by  reason 
of  the  imperfection  of  man,  and  of  the  law  un- 
der which  he  acted,  Christ  the  God-man,  in 
in  whom  is  perfection,  and  who  was  of  a  tribe 
of  greater  dignity,  was  ordained  of  and  anoint- 
ed by,  God,  (not  by  a  woman)  and  consecrated 
a  glorious  high  priest  over  his  church,  after  the 


103 

end  of  the  law  ;  for  Paul  tells  us  so  explicitly  : 
Heb.  vii.  28.  "  For  the  law  maketh  men  high 
priests  which  have  infirmity  :  but  the  word  of 
the  oath,  which  was  since  the  law,  maketh  the 
Son,  who  is  consecrated  forevermore."  Thus 
we  see,  that  Christ  was  not  a  priest  under  the 
law  but  since,  or  after  it.  Ali  the  ceremonies 
under  the  Aaronic  administration  must  there- 
fore of  necessity  cease,  and  circumcision  among 
the  rest,  for  it  was  attached  thereto.  "  There 
is  made  of  necessity  a  change  also  of  the  law." 
There  must  be  under  this  new  priesthood,  en- 
tire new  laws,  and  regulations  agreeably  to  the 
dignity  of  the  glorious  priest,  who,  in  introduc- 
ing his  new  dispensation,  was  not  to  arise  after 
the  order  of  Aaron,  "  but  for  ever  after  the  or- 
der of  Melchisedeck."  u  There  is  made  of  ne- 
cessity.'*? .  It  must  be  so  according  to  the  very 
nature  of  the  divine  dispensation.  Shall  the 
tribe  of  Lev*  lose  the  priestly  office  ?  Yes— 
and  shall  it  eternally  be  placed  in  the  kingly- 
tribe  ?  Yes — Shall  the  same  man  hold  the 
sceptre,  and  wear  the  priestly  mitre  ?  Yes  ! — 
Astonishing  change  indeed  in  the  w  hole  dis- 
pensation !  "  For  he  of  whom  these  things  are 
spoken,  pertaineth  to  another  tribe,  of  which 
no  man  gave  attendance  at  the  altar  :  for  it  is 
evident  our  Lord  sprang  out  of  Judah,  of  which 
tribe  Moses  spake  nothing  concerning  priest- 
hood :  Heb.  vii.  12.  13.  14.  (Observe  here* 
the  silence  of  Moses,  is  said  by  Paul,  to  be 
proof,  "  evident  proof"  of  a  fact.  Surely  then 
the  silence  of  scripture  about  infant  baptism 
ought  to  be  proof  also,  that  it  never  was  prac* 


tised  until  revelation  ceased.)  Can  we  believe 
that  John,  the  faithful  servant  oi  God,  would 
violate  the  law  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  baptize 
a  son  of  Judah,  to  act  in  the  office  of  the  sons 
of  Levi ;  which  was  entailed  on  them  for  a 
perpetual  statute  "?  We  cannot  !  But  he  might 
have  done  so  ignorantly  !  Well  thought  of ! 
John  was  raised  in  the  wilderness !  But  now 
we  recollect  ourselves,  this  apology  will  net 
remove  the  error,  for  God  commanded  him 
particularly  to  baptize  Christ,  and  Christ  him- 
self submitted  to  the  ordinance,  so  that  if  there 
is  an  error,  (and  an  error  there  undoubtedly  ia 
if  he  was  baptized  to  fulfil  the  Levitical  priest- 
hood) and  we  remove  it  from  John,  we  charge 
it  on  the  Father,  and  the  Son  !  *  You  must 
give  up  this  point,  for  it  will  not  answer,  thus 
to  persist  in  charges,  against  the  clearest  evi- 
dence !  You  must  admit  that  John  knew  ChrV, 
and  baptized  him  as  a  priest  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment dispensation,  not  after  the  order  of  Aaror, 
but  after  the  order  of  Melchisedcck,  to  an  eter- 
nal priesthood,  and  that  He,  submitting  to  bap- 
tism, left  an  example  for  his  people  to  follow  ! 
Well,  if  this  is  admitted,  and  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted, or  you  will  sin  against  the  clearest 
light ;  what  will  become  of  infant  baptism,  and 
your  pamphlet.  They  must  be  cast  to  the 
moles  and  the  bats,  or  sent  back  to  the  church 
of  Rome,  the  Harlot,  the  mother  of  abomina- 
tions. 

*  But  such  was  the  malice  and  envy  of  the  Jews,  that  had 
John  attempted  to  wash  Christ  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  as 
11  priest  of  their  order,  he  would  no  doubt,  have  been  put  to 
tenth,'  said  it  would  iuve  been  lawful :  >'uuib.  ill.  10.  xviii.  r: 


105 

But,  sir,  we  cannot  leave  your  work  yet. 
It  is  too  full  of  error  and  abomination,  to  let  it 
pass  itself  upon  the  world  for  reason  and  truth. 
In  page  77,  you  say  :  "  And  at  a  certain  time, 
a  woman  poured  an  alabaster  box  of  ointment 
upon  his  head  :  so  he  received  a  pouring  of 
oil  as  Aaron  did.  Therefore  his  baptism  was 
one  of  the  divers  baptism's  under  the  law," 
(and  children  must  be  sprinkled  !)  Well  done 
Mr.  R.  Take  care  baptists  !  Stand  fast,  and 
dont  suffer  your  faith  to  be  overthrown  !  We 
shall  next  hear  that  Paul's  mother  was  a  Jew- 
ess, therefore  Paul  could  not  be  a  christian 
apostle.  Surely  the  reasoning  in  one  case,  is 
as  good  as  that  in  the  other !  "At  a  certain 
time  a  woman:"  why,  poor  John!  you  are 
to  be  pitied,  you  must  have  a  woman,  and 
Mr.  R.  to  help  you,  or  you  cannot  consecrate 
Christ  a  priest  after  the  order  of  Aaron  :  and 
now  you  have  not  effected  it,  after  all  your  la- 
bor. Why  John  !  You  made  a  wrong  choice 
of  your  woman  !  Oh !  John,  I  ask  your  par- 
don, it  was  Mr.  Russell's  choice!  And  if  he 
had  made  as  good  a  choice  as  Saul,  king  of  Is- 
rael did,  he  might  have  had  Moses  brought 
up,  to  have  helped  him  out  at  a  dead  lift. 
Don't  be  angry,  sir,  for  Ave  are  sure  that  your 
case  required  it,  as  much  as  Saul's  did  !  "  A 
woman  poured  oil  upon  his  head  ;"  "  there- 
fore" (as  a  natural  consequence)  "  his  baptism 
was  one  of  the  divers  baptisms  under  the  law." 
This  may  do  for  some  people,  that  cannot,  or 
will  not  read,  and  think  for  themselves ;  but 
we  should  be  very  sorry,  if  only  one  christian, 


10(7 

that  hath  a  bible,  and  can  read,  would  be  so 
imposed  upon.  Now  let  us  view  the  differ- 
ence between  truth  and  error  :  Moses,  autho- 
rised, and  directed  by  the  God  of  wisdom, 
doth  his  work  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of 
the  congregation,  at  once,  and  alone  ;  accord- 
ing to  the  law  of  God,  in  that  case  made  and 
provided,  which  we  read  you  some  time  ago. 
But  whenever  we  set  men  to  do  a  work  that 
they  have  no  authority  for,  or  are  unacquaint- 
ed with,  they  stumble  at  the  very  threshold ; 
and  it  is  a  thousand  to  one,  if  they  ever  accom- 
plish their  design.  For  instance,  Mr.  R.  will 
have  John  to  make  a  common  Jewish  priest  of 
our  Lord  :  to  work  he  goes,  and  no  doubt  the 
good  man  did  his  duty  !  Well,  how  does  the 
case  stand  ?  John  the  Baptist,  not  being  a 
priest,  neither  commanded  of  God  to  conse- 
crate his  son  to  the  priestly  office  after  the  or- 
der of  Aaron,  happened  one  day  when  he  was 
baptizing  in  Jordan,  to  have  Jesus  come  to  him 
in  the  wilderness,  and  to  demand  baptism  at 
his  hands,  saying,  suffer  it  to  be  so.  John 
baptized  him;*  but  happening  to  have  no  oil 
with  him,  he  did  not  anoint  him,  although  it 
was  commanded  by  the  Mosaic  law.  This 
event  happened  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  twenty- 

*  Whem  Christ  was  baptized,  there  came  aroice  from  hea- 
ven saying,  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  plea- 
sed ;  and  the  Holy  Ghost  descended,  lighting  upon  him.  Thus 
the  first,  and  third  persons  of  the  Trinity,  bore  their  testimo- 
ny to  the  obedience  of  Christ.  And  Mr.  R.  says,  he  wa«  at 
that  time  violating  the  law  of  God  ;  which  was  the  fact,  if  he 
was  washed  to  fulfil  the  Leviticallaw  :  and  instead  of  bearing 
testimony  to  his  obedience,  he  ought  by  that  law  to  have  b«en 
stoned  to  death  :  Numbers  iii.  10.  S*  xviii.  7. 


107 

seven.  In  the  year  of  our  Lord  thirty-three," 
Christ  was  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper. 
u  Then  came  unto  him  a  woman  ;  having  an 
alabaster  box  of  very  precious  ointment,"  (not 
oil)  and  poured  it  upon  his  head,  as  he  sat  at 
meat.  Mr.  R.  says  "  to  qualify  him  as  priest." 
John  had  neglected  it  for  six  years,  and  rather 
than  it  should  not  be  done,  Mi*.  R.  makes  this 
woman  do  it.  What  a  blessed  thing  is  the 
word  of  God  !  How  thankful  we  ought  to  be 
for  that  gift,  and  the  ability  to  read  it.  It  will 
detect  error  in  every  shape,  however  plausi- 
bly, sophistry  will  represent  it.  Our  blessed 
Lord  said,  "  she  did  it  for  his  burial:"  Matt. 
xxvi.  13.  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whereso- 
ever this  gospel  shall  be  preached  in  the  whole 
world,  there  shall  also  this,  that  this  woman 
hath  done,  be  told  for  a  memorial  of  her." 
Let  Mr.  R.  reflect  if  his  representation  of  this 
act  of  this  pious  woman,  reflects  honor  on  her, 
or  credit  on  himself. 

You  say  page  78,  "  John's  dispensation  was, 
as  Mr.  Moore  says,  an  intermediate  dispensa- 
tion under  the  law.*  If  it  was  indeed  under 
the  law,  it  cannot  be  between  that,  and  the  gos- 
pel ;  consequently  that  is  an  error.  But,  sir, 
in  what  chapter  and  verse  do  you  read  of  such 
a  dispensation.     We  read  of  an  old,  and  new 

*  After  my  work  was  finished,  and  I  had  spoken  to  a  prin» 
ter,  I  met  with  a  book  written  by  Joseph  Moore,  which  I  sup- 
pose to  be  the  person  Mr.  R.  intends.  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  in- 
form my  readers,  that  Mr.  M.  was  not  as  ignorant  as  Mr.  R. 
has  represented  him.  He  says  page  6,  "  John's  preaching/ 
and  baptism,  form  a  kind  of  an  intermediate  dispensation  be* 
tween  the  law  and  the  gospel."   • 


108 

testament,  of  a  "  new  covenant,"  "of  a  better 
covenant,"  "  of  a  better  testament ;"  which  \vc 
understand  as  the  new  dispensation,  under  the 
gospel ;  as  distinguished  from  the  old,  under 
the  law.  But  we  no  where  read  of  an  iritertne* 
diate  dispensation  in  the  bible.  You  and  your 
friend  Moore,  have  built  this  dispensation  upon 
the  covenant,  or  rather  law  of  circumcision,  to 
form  a  second  foundation  for  infant  sprinkling ; 
and  all  the  reasons  that  you  offer  in  proof,  are, 
John  said,  Christ  must  increase,  and  he  must 
decrease  ;  and  that  John's  disciples  were  re- 
baptized  ;  (which  we  have  disproved.)  That 
Christ  did  increase,  and  will  continue  to  in- 
crease, untill  all  his  covenant  people  are  gather- 
ed together,  is  a  fact  at  which  we  rejoice ;  but 
what  has  that  to  do  with  your  intermediate 
dispensation  ?  That  by  no  means  proves  your 
assertion.  John's  disciples  going  from  him, 
to  Christ,  caused  a  decrease  of  the  one,  and  an 
increase  of  the  other,  we  admit ;  and  that  was 
always  intended,  it  was  a  part  of  his  errand, 
and  a  very  eminent  part,  to  prepare  the  way, 
as  we  have  already  shewn,  by  baptizing  disci- 
ples for  his  great  Lord  and  master.  And 
John's  decreasing  as  all  mere  men  must,  is  no 
proof  whatever  that  his  dispensation  was  an 
intermediate  one,  and  such  a  one  as  we  have 
no  account  of  in  scripture.  You  very  often 
take  things  for  granted,  without  any  authority, 
but  the  authority  of  your  own  will,  and  give  no 
reason  but  your  own  declaration.  But  if  John's 
disciples  had  been  baptized  a  thousand  times, 
it  would  by  no  means  prove  your  unscripturai 


109 

dispensation.  What  do  you  understand  by 
*'  intermediate"  in  this  connection  ?  Newton 
says  it  is  "  intervening;  interposed."  Taylor 
says,  u  intervene  is  to  come  between  persons 
or  things."  Wotton  says,  it  is  "  opposition." 
Swift  says,  "  interpose,  from  the  Latin  inter- 
ponoj  to  thrust  in  as  an  obstruction,  interrup- 
tion, or  inconvenience."  Boyle  says,  "  to  inter- 
pose"— (l)  '*  to  mediate,  to  act  between  two 
parties" — (2)  "  to  put  in  by  way  of  interrup- 
tion." Woodward  says,  "  to  interpose,  to 
offer  succour  or  relief."  Surely,  sir,  you  can- 
not [\dmit  that  John  came  with  any  such  views, 
he  did  not  come  as  a  mediator  :  that  was 
Christs'  office.  He  did  not  come  to  relieve  or 
succour,  that  also  was  Christs'  province  ;  and 
surely  he  did  not  come  with  the  hostile  inten- 
tion, of  interruption,  or  opposition,  in  direct 
violation  of  his  acknowledged  commission  ; 
which  was  to  "  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord, 
and  make  his  paths  straight."  Our  blessed 
Lord  said,  "  The  law  and  the  prophets  were 
until  John  :  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  preached,  and  every  man  presses  into 
it:"  Luke  xvi.  16.  Again,  "  For  all  the  pro- 
phets and  the  law  prophesied  until  John  :" 
Matt.  xi.  13.  When  John  entered  upon  his 
ministry,  prophecy  ceased  :  nay,  the  prophets 
had  nothing  more  to  do.  All  the  prophecies 
had  immediate  respect  to  Christs'  coming,  and 
when  he  came  they  ceased  of  course.  But  to 
put  John  upon  an  eouality  with  the  prophets, 
under  the  law,  is  degrading.  Our  Lord  said, 
he  was  more  than  a  prophet,  "  than  any  pro- 


110 

phet."  He  alone  had  the  honor  of  saying, 
"  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God ;"  of  baptizing 
Christ,  and  his  disciples  for  him;  and  of  preach- 
ing the  first  gospel  sermon  under  the  new  dis- 
pensation, "saying  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at 
hand,"  (Christ  is  in  the  flesh.)  This  was  the 
whole  of  his  mission,  and  as  soon  as  he  ac- 
complished his  work,  he  decreased,  and  dis- 
appeared. But  to  attempt  to  continue  the 
law,  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  because  it 
was  absolutely  necessary,  from  the  very  nature 
of  that  dispensation  that  John  should  act  as  he 
did ;  is  certainly  a  great  abuse  of  scripture. 
If  u  the  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John" 
entered  upon  his  ministry,  surely  they  ceased 
when  his  mission  began  ;  consequently  the  old 
dispensation  ended,  and  the  new  or  gospel  dis- 
pensation commenced.  This  is  evident  be- 
yond contradiction  from  the  words  of  our 
Lord,  quoted  before ;  i.  e.  "  The  law  and  the 
prophets  were  until  John,  since  that  time  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  preached."  You  cannot 
deny  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  this  place 
means  the  gospel  dispensation;  and  if  it  does, 
how  can  you  have  the  face  to  say,  John's  was 
an  intermediate  one,  under  the  law  ;  in  direct 
contradiction  of  the  words  of  Christ.  No  sir, 
the  moment  the  law-dispensation  ceased,  which 
was  the  moment  that  John  entered  upon  his 
mission,  the  gospel  dispensation  commenced  ; 
which  is  further  evidenced  by  the  words  of 
Mark  and  Paul,  Anno  Dom.  26  :  Mark  i.  1 — 
3.  "  The  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ  the  Son  of  God,  as  it  is  written  in  the 


Ill 

prophets,  Behold,  I  send  my  messenger  before 
thy  face  which  shall  prepare  thy  way  before 
thee.  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilder- 
ness, prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  his 
paths  straight."  But  the  apostle  Paul  puts  it 
beyond  doubt :  Heb.  vii.  28.  "  For  the  law 
maketh  men  high  priests  which  have  infirmi- 
ty :  but  the  word  of  the  oath  which  was  since 
the  law,  maketh  the  Son,  who  is  consecrated 
forevermore."  If  we  admit  that  John's  dis- 
pensation was  under  the  law,  we  say  Christ  had 
infirmity,  that  is,  was  not  perfect,  which  is 
contrary  to  truth  and  common  sense  ;  for  the 
apostle  saith  the  Son  was  made  a  priest  by  oath 
since  the  law,  and  continues  forevermore  ;  and 
Mr.  M.  and  you  are  mistaken,  or  make  de- 
clarations contrary  to  your  better  judgment.* 

In  page  48,  you  say,  "  We  have  reason  there- 
fore to  believe  that  as  Adam  labored  for  the 
bread  of  life,  so  also  that  he  labored  in  sacri- 
fice to  secure  an  interest  in  the  covenant  before 
it  was  made,  and  so  became  Abraham's." 
You  have  a  wonderful  faith  !  a  strong  faith  in- 
deed. But  faith  not  founded  on  the  word  of 
God,  is  mere  delusion,  and  presumption. 
Why  have  you  reason  to  believe  all  this  ?  We 
are  sure  that  you  have  no  reason  from  scrip- 
ture, for  there  is  not  the  smallest  intimation  of 


*  John's  being  called  a  prophet  doth  not  suppose  him  to 
have  been  under  the  legal  dispensation,  or  between  the  law 
and  the  gospel.  Barnabas  and  Saul  (Paul)  are  called  pro- 
phets:  Acts.  xiii.  1.  "Follow  after  charity,  and  desire  spi- 
ritual gifts,  but  rather  that  ye  may  prophesy  :"  1  Cor.  14.  1. 
Again,  "  And  he  gave  some,  apo6tles  :  and  some  prophets  ;" 
Eph.  iv.  11. 


112 

it  there  !  For  us  to  believe  what  God  has  re- 
vealed, is  our  duty  ;  nay,  we  cannot  be  chris- 
tians unless  we  do.  But  for  us  to  imagine 
things,  and  take  to  ourselves  the  credit  of  be- 
lieving them,  is  mere  delusion.  I  am  con- 
vinced, if  you  could  have  devised  a  better  way 
to  vindicate  your  unscriptural  rite  of  infant 
sprinkling,  you  never  would  have  gene  back 
two  thousand  years  to  reveal  to  Adam,  in  di- 
rect opposition  to  what  God  had  revealed  to 
him,  that  the  seed  of  man  was  to  be  his  Saviour. 
We  believe  that  Adam,  and  all  after  him  were 
saved  in  faith  of  the  seed  of  the  woman,  but 
not  as  you  do  in  the  covenant  to  be  made  with 
Abraham ;  but  in  the  one  already  made  ivith 
Christ,  and  revealed  to  Adam  for  his  belief  and 
comfort.  What  other  assurance  could  they 
have,  or  could  they  want,  than  that  the  seed  of 
the  woman  should  overcome  the  serpent,  sa- 
tisfy for  their  sin,  and  bring  in  an  everlasting 
righteousness  which  should  be  accepted,  and 
become  the  ground  of  their  justification.  We 
have  no  room  for  thinking,  much  less  for  be- 
lieving, that  Adam  ever  had  the  least  thought 
of  Abraham. 

We  shall  take  a  little  notice  of  your  "  He- 
brew church  which  you  say  was  built  upon  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  through  the  faith  of  the 
gospel ;  is  now  standing  and  will  remain  to  the 
end  of  time."  In  page  3d,  you  intend  to  in- 
form your  readers,  that  the  visible  church  of 
Christ  is  the  same  now  that  it  was  under  the 
law,  with  a  little  variation  in  its  ordinances, 
"  as  a  man  with  his  apparel  changed,  still  re- 


113 

mains  the  same."  This  you  took  from  EcU 
wards,  but  have  not  been  honest  enough  to 
give  him  credit  for  it.  Be  that  as  it  may,  you! 
have  made  it  your  own.  If  we  understand 
you,  you  make  the  gospel  church,  as  to  its 
members,  to  be  precisely  what  the  Jewish 
church  was,  and  that  there  is  no  more  altera- 
tion in  it,  than  there  would  be  in  the  same  man 
with  a  change  of  apparel. 

You  admit  (because  you  cannot  deny)  that 
the  disciples  of  Christ  baptized.  Very  well. 
Wliottt  did  they  baptize  ?  It  must  have  been 
the  Jews,  for  they  were  commanded,  "  Go 
not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into  any 
city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye  .,ot,  but  go  to 
the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel :"  Matt. 
x.  5.  6.  What  did  his  disciples  baptize  them 
for  ?  They  had  been  circumcised,  and  that  was 
sufficient,  as  you  say,  for  their  entering  into 
Christ's  church.  It  is  something  mysterious 
that  they  should  have  two  ordinances  to  initi- 
ate them  into  the  same  church,  for  you  say  this 
is  the  way  of  initiation  :  circumcision  former- 
ly, baptism  now7.  Why,  it  wot: Id  appear  from 
your  statement ;  and  the  facts  recorded  in 
scripture,  that  all  the  New  Testament  ministers 
were  anabaptists.  If  baptism  came,  as  you 
say,  in  place  of  circumcision,  it  is  as  much  re- 
baptism  to  baptize  those  who  were  circum- 
cised,  as  to  baptize  those  that  had  been  bap- 
tized r  and  that  John  thus  acted,  is  as  evident 
as  that  he  existed;  and  that  the  disciples  of  our 
Lord,  from  the  very  nature  of  their  command, 

must  have  done  the  same,  I  hope  you  will  not 
k.  2 


114 

deny.  You  have  accounted  already  in  your 
way  for  the  baptism  of  Christ.  He  entered 
the  church  you  say  by  circumcision,  and  his 
baptism  was  a  Jewish  washing.  But,  sir,  I 
must  ask  you  again,  why  were  his  disciples 
baptized,  and  why  did  they  baptize  the  Jews? 
This  does  not  appear  like  a  change  of  apparel, 
it  looks  more  like  a  new  garment  over  the  old  ! 
This  strange  conduct  in  Christ  and  his  disci- 
ples, agreeably  to  your  assertions,  must  be  ac- 
counted for  ;  and  as  you  have  loaded  them  with 
the  charge,  you  must  vindicate  their  conduct, 
or  confess  your  wrong.  You  set  out  with 
Abraham  as  our  example,  and  ask  more  in  the 
gospel  day  for  admission  into  the  Jewish 
church,  than  Abraham  had  required  of  him. 
The  apostle  has  led  us  to  believe  that  the  yoke 
of  bondage  was  taken  off,  and  Christ  told  his 
disciples  "  his  yoke  was  easy,  and  his  burden 
light."  But  you  have  indeed  contradicted 
them  both  :  beside,  you  make  a  difference  in 
the  head,  and  the  members  of  the  church. 
C»»lst  the  head,  entered  the  church  by  circum- 
cision. The  members  enter  doubly,  by  cir- 
cumcision in  their  infancy,  and  then  by  bap- 
tism, when  they  believe.  How,  sir,  can  you 
with  propriety,  ask  more  of  any  member,  than 
was  required  of  Abraham,  or  than  Christ  per- 
fofmed?  If  you  are  correct  in  your  declarations, 
these  are  the  consequences  that  follow  :  Abra- 
ham the  first  member  of  the  gospel  church, 
entered  by  circumcision,  and  his  sons  and  male 
servants  entered  in  the  same  way  :  but  Sirah, 
the  mother  of  the  seed,  the  free  woman,  and 


115 

all  her  daughters,  however  pious,  shall  have  no 
place  in  the  church  of  Christ.  Again,  Christ, 
the  head  of  the  church,  after  he  was  born  of  ihe 
virgin,  entered  the  church  at  eight  days  old  by 
circumcision;  but  all,  that  entered  the  church 
after  John  commenced  his  ministry,  were  com- 
pelled to  enter  by  baptism,  notwithstanding 
they  had  been  circumcised  at  eight  days  old. 
We  find  you  have  two  doors  to  ycur  church. 
But  perhaps  you  will  object  and  say,  before 
Christ  entered  upon  his  ministry,  it  was  proper 
to  circumcise  them  ;  but  after  he  sent  out  his 
disciples  to  preach,  and  baptize,  then  they  en- 
tered only  by  baptism,  whether  men,  women, 
or  children.  I  must  remind  you  of  your  error, 
sir,  for  you  have  told  us  that  the  reason  why 
Christ  did  not  baptize  the  children  that  were 
brought  to  him,  that  he  might  lay  his  hands 
on  them,  and  pray,  was  "  because  they  were 
all  circumcised  at  eight  days  old  :"  page  27. 

We  are  not  backward  in  saying,  that  neither 
Christ,  nor  John  the  Baptist,  nor  the  apostle 
Paul  ever  acknowledged  the  Jewish  church  to 
be  the  church  of  Christ,  after  the  commence- 
ment of  the  christian  aera,  which  we  think  was 
introduced  at  John's  baptism. 

First — Christ  did  not  acknowledge  the  Jews 
to  be  in,  or  of  his  church.  But  were  not  all  the 
disciples  of  Christ,  Jews?  Yes.  ,  Then  they 
had  been  circumcised  and  were  in  that  church. 
Hear  the  words  of  Christ  to  these  disciples  : 
"  If  the  world  hate  you,  ye  know  that  it  hated 
me  before  it  hated  you.  If  ye  were  of  the 
world,  the  world  would  love  his  own :  but  be- 


lid 

cause  ye  ?.re  not  of  the  world,  but  I  have  cho- 
sen you  out  of  the  world,  therefore  the  world 
hateth  you:"  Jno.  xv.  18.  19.  Who  was  it 
that  hated  Christ  and  his  disciples  ?  The  Jews. 
Who  \vas  it  that  Christ  in  this  passage  call  the 
world  ?  The  Jews.  Where  were  the  disciples 
of  Christ,  when  John  baptized  them?  In  the 
Jewish  church.  Then  it  is  evident  that  Christ 
did  not  acknowledge  the  church  in  which  they 
were,  to  be  his  church,  for  he  called  them  out 
of  it,  denominating  it  the  world.  But  that 
there  may  not  a  doubt  remain,  that  the  Jewish 
church  was  here  intended  by  the  world,  read  the 
25th  verse  of  this  chapter.  "  That  the  word 
might  be  fulfilled  that  is  written  in  their  law. 
They  hated  me  without  a  cause."  Again  : 
Christ  speaking  to  the  Scribes,  Pharisees,  and 
Jews;  "  Ye  are  from  beneath,  I  am  from  above; 
ye  are  of  this  world,  I  am  not  of  this  world  :" 
Jno.  viii.  23.  "  Yc  are  of  your  father  the  de- 
vil, and  the  lusts  of  your  lather  ye  will  do:"  44th 
verse.  From  these  passages  it  is  clearly  seen 
that  Christ  never  did  acknowledge  the  Jewish 
church  as  his,  or  himself  of  them,  after  he  was 
come  in  the  flesh.  In  the  twenty-third  chap- 
ter of  Matthew,  he  denounces  eight  woes 
against  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  calls  them 
hypocrites,  and  says,  u  Ye  compass  sea  and 
land  to  make  one  proselyte,  and  when  he  is 
made,  ye  make  him  two-fold  more  the  child 
of  hell  then  yourselves  !  Ye  serpents,  ye  gene- 
ration of  vipers,  how  can  ye  escape  the  damna- 
tion of  hell."  This,  sir,  is  the  sample  of  the 
church  of  the  meek  and  lovely  Jesus,  accord- 


117 

irtg  to  j  our  absurd  declarations.  I  hope  you 
will  reflect  upon  t'ne  dishonor  you  are  doing 
God,  and  repent  and  retract.  Secondly — John 
the  Biptist  did  not  acknowledge  them  to  be 
the  church  of  Christ,  because  they  were  the 
children  of  Abraham ;  but  required  higher 
qualifications.  "  But  when  he  saw  many  of 
the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  come  to  his  bap- 
tism, he  said  unto  them,  O  generation  of  vi- 
pers !  who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  the 
wrath  to  come  ?  Bring  forth,  therefore,  fruits 
meet  for  repentance.  And  think  not  to  say 
within  yourselves,  we  have  Abraham  to  our 
father  :  for  I  say  unto  you,  God  is  able  of  these 
stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abraham  :" 
Matt.  iii.  7 — 9.  That  they  applied  to  John 
for  baptism,  we  prove  by  Luke  iii.  7.  It  is 
therefore  evident,  John  did  not  acknowledge 
them  to  be  the  church  of  Christ,  because  they 
were  of  the  Jewish  church,  but  evidently  re- 
fused them  the  gospel  ordinance  of  baptism, 
when  they  required  it  on  that  ground. 

Thirdly — The  apostle  Paul  dees  not  ac* 
knowledge  them  to  be  the  church  of  Christ. 
He  makes  a  clear  distinction  between  the  Jew- 
ish religion,  and  the  religion  of  Christ.  "  For 
ye  have  heard  of  my  conversation  in  time  past, 
hi  the  Jews  religion,  how  that  beyond  measure, 
I  persecuted  the  church  of  God,  and  wasted  it. 
And  profited  in  the  Jews  religion  above  many 
my  equals  in  mine  own  nation,  being  more 
exceedingly  zealous  of  the  traditions  of  my 
fathers.  But  when  it  pleased  God,  and  called 
me  by  his  grace,  to  reveal  his  Son  in  me,  that 


118 

I  might  preach  among  the  heathen,  imn 
ately  I  conferred  not  with  flesh  and  blood  :" 
Gal.  i.  13  —  1G.  Paul  acknowledges  that  the 
religion  of  the  Jews,  after  their  rejection  of 
Christ,  was  not  the  religion  of  God,  for  when 
he  was  of  that  religion  he  persecuted  the 
church  of  God,  and  in  this  he  acted  in  a  more 
violent  manner  than  many  others  of  the  Jews. 
Why  did  he  thus  act  ?  Because  he  had  a  great- 
er zeal  in  the  Jews  religion,  and  the  traditions 
of  the  fathers.  From  this  it  is  evident,  that 
the  Jews  were  the  best,  and  most  zealous  of 
their  church,  who  persecuted  the  church  of 
Christ  most,  and  wasted  it.  This  is  evident, 
from  the  whole  history  of  that  people,  from  the 
first  commencement  of  the  church  of  Christ, 
under  the  gospel.  Yet  we  find  men  still  zeal- 
ous of  the  tradition  of  the  fathers,  and  as  much 
as  they  can,  endeavor  to  deface  the  beauty  of, 
(if  not  waste)  the  church  of  Christ. 

We  will  prove  by  the  Jews  themselves  that 
they  were  not  of  the  church  of  Christ.  "  But 
when  the  Pharisees  heard  it,  they  said  this  fel- 
low doth  not  cast  out  devils,  but  by  Beelzebub 
the  prince  of  the  devils  :"  Matt.  xii.  27.  "  For 
the  Jews  had  agreed  already,  that  if  any  man 
did  confess  that  he  was  Christ,  he  should  be 
put  out  of  the  synagogue  :"  Jno.  ix.  22.  This 
agreement  must  have  been  made  by  the  Jews, 
in  a  church  capacity,  for  the  punishment  they 
inflicted  was  a  church  censure  ;  and  it  evi- 
dently proves  that  Christ  could  not  have  been 
a  member  of  that  church.  (That  Mr.  R.  should 
say  the   Jewish    church    was  the    church  of 


119 

Christ  is  as  astonishing  as  any  thing  in  his 
book.  I  am  surprised  that  any  man  could 
have  the  face  to  make  such  a  declaration.  { 
was  surprised  at  Edwards  in  making  it,  but 
he  had  a  little  more  modesty.)  "  WeJ  know 
that  God  spake  unto  Moses  :  as  for  this  fellow, 
we  know  not  from  whence  he  is:"  v.  29. 
These,  sir,  are  the  declarations  of  the  Phari- 
sees, not  the  rabble,  but  the  chief  men  of  that 
Jewish  church.  They  reviled  the  man  that 
had  been  blind,  and  said ;  "  Thou  art  his  dis- 
ciple, but  we  are  Moses'  disciples:"  v.  28. 
I  do  not  believe  that  Tom  Paine  would  have 
said,  Christ  was  a  member  of  the  Jewish 
church ! 

They  not  only  denied  Christ  to  be  the  head 
of  the  gospel  church,  but  they  persecuted  his 
apostles  and  members.  u  Then  the  high  priest 
rose  up  and  all  they  that  were  with  him,  and 
were  filled  with  indignation,  and  laid  their 
hands  on  the  apostles,  and  put  them  in  the 
common  prison:"  Acts.  v.  17.  18.  "And 
they  stoned  Stephen  calling  upon  God  :"  Ibid, 
vii.  59.  "  And  the  Jews  made  insurrection, 
with  one  consent  against  Paul,  saying,  this  fel- 
low persuadeth  men  to  worship  God  contrary 
to  the  law:"  Acts,  xviii.  12.  13.  "  For  we 
have  found  this  man,  (Paul)  a  pestilent  fellow, 
and  a  mover  of  sedition  among  all  the  Jews, 
throughout  the  world,  and  a  ring-leader  of  the 
sect  of  the  Nazarenes."  From  these  quota- 
tions is  it  easily  perceived  that  the  Jews  as  a 
church,  never  received  Christ  or  his  disciples, 
but  contrary-wise.     It  is  easily  discovered  that 


120 

they  were  their  greatest  enemies,  and  persecu- 
tors. Paul  is  called  a  ring-leader  of  the  sect 
of  theNazarenes,  that  is,  one  of  the  most  zeal- 
ous preachers,  and  followers  of  Christ.  They 
never  acknowledged  Christ  or  his  disciples  to 
be  a  church,  but  viewed  them  as  disturbers  of 
the  peace,  and  enemies  of  the  law  of  Moses, 
and  traditions  of  the  fathers.  And  without 
doubt  had  no  more  to  do  together  as  a  church, 
then  the  baptists,  and  methodists  have.  How 
truly  ridiculous  doth  it  appear,  and  how  incon- 
sistent with  reason  and  scriptui-c,  that  these 
very  priests,  Scribes,  Pharisees,  Sadducees, 
Sanhedrim  ,and  people  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
that  falsely  accused  Christ,  crying  crucify 
him  !  crucify  him !  should  still  be  members 
of  his  church.  Great  God !  deliver  men 
from  such  infidelity. 

We  read,  that  under  the  sermon  of  Peter, 
many  converts  were  made.  And  it  is  after- 
wards said,  **  That  about  three  thousand  were 
added  to  the  church  the  same  day  :"  Acts.  ii. 
41.  "  And  that  God  added  to  the  church  dai- 
ly such  as  he  would  have  to  be  saved."  Is  it 
possible  to  conceive  that  these  Jews  were  added 
to  the  church,  they  were  members  of  before  ; 
to  the  Hebrew  church  as  you  call  it  ?  No  sir, 
it  is  unreasonable  to  believe  it,  and  that  they 
were  Jews,  read  the  36th  verse.  "  Therefore 
let  all  the  house  of  Israel  know  assuredly  that 
God  hath  made  that  same  Jesus  whom  ye  have 
crucified,  both  Lord  and  Christ :" — and  v.  41. 
**  Three  thousand  of  them  are  said  to  be  added 
to  the  church."     "  Tidings  of  these  things 


121 

came  unio  the  ears  of  the  church,  which  was 
at  Jerusalem,  and  they  sent  forth  Barnabas 
that  he  should  go  as  far  as  Antioch:"  Acts, 
xi.  22.  But  according  to  your  declaration 
Barnabas  must  have  been  sent  to  preach,  not  by 
the  disciples,  but  by  their  enemies,  and  the 
enemies  of  Christ,  that  is  by  the  Jewish  nation, 
for  it  was  the  church  that  sent  him  ;  and  as 
the  whole  of  that  nation,  of  all  ages  and  de- 
scriptions, (females  excepted)  were  members 
of  that  church,  there  must  have  been  a  vast 
number  of  Jewish  children  concerned  in  sending 
this  good  man  to  exhort  their  enemies  to  cleave 
to  the  Lord  with  full  purpose  of  heart ;  and 
thereby  aid  in  the  propagation  of  the  very 
gospel,  the  Jews  were  endeavoring  to  destroy. 
1  will  remind  you  of  a  text,  and  close  this 
head  :  Eph.  ii.  15.  "  For  to  make  in  himself 
of  twain  one  new  man."  The  apostle  intends 
by  the  new  man,  the  church  of  Christ.  And 
this  new  man  is  made  out  of  Jews  and  gentiles, 
and  so  made,  it  is  a  new  man,  not  an  old  tnan, 
as  the  Jewish  church  was.  Fourteen  hundred 
and  ninety  years  old,  and  but  a  new  man ! 
This  shews  that  in  taking  away  this  partition, 
Jesus  distinguished  between  the  Jews  and  gen- 
tiles, and  placed  them  on  a  level  as  to  religious 
rites,  and  then  out  of  doth  made  a  new  man  or 
church,  and  that  quite  different  from  both  Pa- 
gan and  Jewish  institutions.  If  he  had  brought 
the  gentile  church  into  the  Jewish,  it  would 
have  been  fourteen  hundred  and  ninety  years 
old,  consequently  a  very  old  man.  The  like 
might  be  said,  had  he  brought  the  Jewish  into 


122 

Paganism,  it  still  would  have  been  nothing 
more  than  an  old  man.  But  says  Paul,  it  is  a 
new  man,  a  new  church  of  Christ;  "  built 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  pro- 
phets, Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief 
corner  stone.'* 

I  will  now  give  you  a  few  pages  in  the 
words  of  Mr.  White  in  answer  to  Mr.  P. 
Edwards,  which  you  will  receive  as  in  sub- 
stance an  answer  to  your  arguments  on  the 
same  subject. 

"  Mr.  E.  says  in  page  40,  there  is  a  "  same- 
ness of  the  church  state  among  the  gentiles, 
with  that  among  the  Jews,"  and  a  change  of 
institutes  he  contends,  page  39,  "  will  in  itself 
produce  no  more  alteration  in  the  members  of 
the  church,  than  a  change  in  a  man's  diet  will 
destroy  the  idenity  of  the  man  "  From  these 
quotations,  we  find  that  he  makes  the  gospel 
church,  as  to  its  members,  to  be  precisely  what 
the  Jewish  church  was ;  and  he  says,  the  gos- 
pel church  is  nothing  more  than  the  man  ap- 
pearing in  new  cloathes. 

"  If  this  definition  is  true,  he  has  hereby,  in 
the  most  explicit  manner,  cut  off  all  females 
from  membership  in  the  gospel  church ;  for 
he  says,  page  33,  that  circumcision  is,  "  a 
public  entering  into  church  fellowship."  If  it 
was  by  circumcision  persons  entered  into  the 
church,  then  females  were  never  in  it ;  and  if 
the  church  is  the  same  under  the  gospel,  of 
course  females  cannot  be  admitted  therein. 

14  Mr.  E.  vindicates  the  membership  of  Jew- 
ish infants  by  the  promise  made  to  Abraham, 


123 

41  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed 
after  thee."  If  this  is  the  warrant,  and  by  the 
seed  is  meant  his  natural  posterity,  then  indeed 
females  were  in  the  Jewish  church;  unless  Mr. 
E.  would  deny  them  to  be  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham ;  and  if  this  is  the  case,  (which  it  surely 
must,  if  the  scripture  just  quoted  is  that  on 
which  he  relies)  then  they  did  not  become 
members  by  circumcision,  and  of  course,  his 
beautiful  type  of  baptism  is  entirely  lost,  and 
his  reasoning  from  analogy  is  foolishness. 
And  if  what  he  says  is  true  that  circumcision 
was  a  li  token  that  God  would  be  a  God  to 
Abraham  and  his  seed,"  and  this  promise  re- 
lated to  things  purely  spiritual ;  it  will  follow, 
that  the  females  had  no  interest  in  God  as  their 
God — no  hope  of  salvation  from  him  ! — must 
be  lost,  and  all  spiritual  blessings  belong  to 
the  males  exclusively.  If  any  thing  more  is 
necessary  to  represent  in  its  true  colors,  the 
absurdity  of  Poedobaptist  views  concerning 
Abraham's  covenant,  I  am  much  mistaken ; 
for  by  it  females  were  shut  out  of  the  church, 
and  excluded  from  heaven,  our  opponents  hav- 
ing declared  Abraham's  covenant  to  be  the 
covenant  of  grace. 

"  Mr.  E.  cannot  rest  without  having  granted 
to  him,  that  circumcision  was  the  door  into 
the  church,  and  baptism  is  now  in  the  place  of 
it.  If  it  was  the  door  into  the  church,  and 
baptism  has  come  in  its  place,  the  door  was  a 
very  narrow  one  indeed ;  so  much  so,  that  it 
would  not  admit  females  into  the  church.  We 
need  not  wonder  therefore,  that  he  denied  them 


124 

a  place  at  the  Lord's  table,  when  they  could 
not  enter  in  the  door.  Let  us  hear  no  more 
of  charity,  ye  advocates  of  infant  church  mem- 
bership ;  for  not  content  with  refusing  infant 
females  a  place  in  the  church  of  old,  you  have 
now  outdone  the  baptists  entirely,  who  deny 
the  right  to  infants,  as  such  ;  whereas  your 
door  into  the  church  excludes  females  of  what- 
ever age,  or  however  pious.  But  this  does 
the  business  for  Mr.  E.'s  division  of  the  sub- 
jects of  baptism  into  adults  and  infants,  when 
he  says,  that  adults  ought  not  to  be  baptized 
without  repentance  and  faith,  though  infants 
may  without  either.  It  is  well  known,  that 
adults  among  the  Jews  had  circumcision  ad- 
ministered to  them  without  any  evidence  of 
grace,  yea,  when  extremely  wicked  in  their 
life ;  neither  is  there  any  evidence  that  any 
spiritual  qualifications  were  required  in  order 
thereunto.  But  if  the  Jewish  and  gospel 
churches  are  the  same,  then,  according  to  that 
rule,  no  gracious  qualifications  are  to  be  requir- 
ed of  any  person  in  order  to  membership  in  the 
gospel  church  ;  and  Mr.  E.'s  talk  about  faith 
and  repentance  being  necessary  to  adult  bap- 
tism, must  not  be  sincere.  It  does  follow, 
therefore,  that  either  the  Jewish  and  gospel 
churches  are  not  one  and  die  same,  and  that 
circumcision  is  no  rule  for  the  administration 
of  baptism  ;  or  else  that  the  church  is  not  the 
church,  and  the  rule  is  not  the  rule. 

"  The  materials  of  the  Jewish  church  were 
different  from  those  of  the  gospel.  1.  They 
were   all  the   posterity  of  one   man,  together 


V25 

with  their  servants  bought  with  money.  This 
cannot  be  disputed  ;  for  if  circumcision  was 
an  initiating  ordinance,  and  male  servants  were 
circumcised,  then,  of  course,  they  were  mem- 
bers :  Gen.  xvii.  27.  2.  No  grace  was  ne- 
cessary, in  either  young  or  aged  persons,  in 
order  to  circumcision.  This  will  appear  from 
the  command  being  general,  to  circumcise  eve- 
ry male  child  :  Gen.  xvii.  10  : — and  surely 
none  will  attempt  to  assert,  that  all  the  male 
posterity  of  Abraham  were  renewed  persons  ? 
That  no  grace  was  requisite,  appears  from  the 
circumcising  of  all  the  sons  of  Shechem  :  Gen. 
xxxiv.  24. — from  the  circumcising  of  a  whole 
army  of  adults  and  infants,  without  distinction: 
Josh.  v.  7. — i hi  the  circumcising  of  a  wicked 
Ishmael :  Gen.  xxvii.  27.  —and,  in  that  no  di- 
rection is  any  where  given  to  require  religious 
experience  prior  thereto,  even  from  adults. 

"  In  direct  opposition  to  all  this,  the  gospel 
church  was  formed  out  of  no  one  fomilv,  nor 
of  a  few  families;  nor  yet  did  all  of  a  family 
belong,  because  one  had  embraced  the  gospel ; 
much  less  was  it  confined  to  one  nation,  or  one 
country.  Neither  are  the  servants  of  a  family 
members  of  the  gospel  church,  on  account  of 
their  master  embracing  religion,  nor  do  our 
opponents  pretend  to  such  a  thing  ;  much  less 
did  they  in  the  church  of  Christ  force  their 
servants  to  be  baptized,  as  the  Jews  compelled 
their  bought  servants  to  be  circumcised.  But 
the  churches  of  Jesus  Christ  were  made  up  of 
persons  who  had  been  converted  under  the  gos- 
pel, nor  do  we  ever  hear  of  any  other:  Acts. 

L  2 


126 

ii.  41.  "  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his- 
word  were  baptized  ;  and  the  same  day  there 
were  added  unto  them  about  three  thousand 
souls."  These  were,  u  added,"  not  to  the 
Jewish  church;  for  to  that  they  did  belong  be- 
fore. Such  as  were  its  members,  it  is  said, 
were  added  by  God,  and  were  in  a  state  of  sal- 
vation :  Acts.  ii.  47.  u  And  the  Lord  added 
to  the  church  daily  such  as  sJiould  be  saved." 
The  gospel  churches  are  spoken  of  thus  :  '*  Be- 
loved  of  God,  called  to  be  saints:  Rom.  i.  7. 
V  Unto  the  church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth, 
to  them  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  cal- 
led to  be  saints  .*"  1  Cor.  i.  2.  "  Unto  the 
church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth,  with  all  the 
saints  which  are  in  all  Achaia:"  2  Cor.  i.  |. 
4C  To  the  saints  which  are  at  Ephesus,  and  to 
the  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus :"  Eph.  i.  1.  "  To 
all  the  taints  in  Christ  Jesus,  which  are  at. 
Philippi:"  Phil.  i.  1.  "  Unto  the  church  of 
the  Thessalonians,  which  is  in  God  the  Fathery 
and  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ:"  1  Thes.  i.  1. 
"  Unto  the  church  of  the  Thessalonkins,  in 
God  our  lather,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ :" 
2  Thes.  i.  1. 

"  This  contrast  shews  plainly,  that  the  two 
are  as  wide  apart  as  the  poles,  and  that  while 
no  grace  was  required  to  be  a  member  of  the 
former,  but  only  a  willingness  to  be  circum- 
cised;  on  the  other  hand,  persons  however 
pious,  who  were  not  of  that  nation,  were  not 
reckoned  to  belong  to  it,  nor  yet  wtvc  they 
commanded  to  be  circumcised.  This  is  evi- 
dent in  the  case  of  Lot,  Abraham's  brother's. 


son.  Yet,  in  the  gospel  church,  no  inquiry 
is  made  about  family,  or  nation.  But  if  what 
Mr.  E.  affirms  is  true,  that  the  infants  of  be- 
lievers are  to  be  baptized,  because  Jewish  in- 
fants were  circumcised  ;  then,  irom  what  I 
have  just  proved,  it  will  appear  that  their 
bought  servants  are  also  to  be  baptized,  yeat 
forced  to  it ;  and,  what  is  worst  of  all,  that  un~ 
believing  adults  are  to  be  baptized,  because 
such  were  circumcised.  Beside  all  this,  a  man- 
that  was  illegitimate  was  not  to  belong  to  the 
Jewish  church  :"  Deut.  xxiii.  2.  "  A  bastard 
shall  not  enter  into  the  congregation  of  the 
Lord.*'  Would  any  man,  besides  Edwards,, 
ever  have  dreamed  of  making  this  the  gospel 
church  ?  What  !  is  it  so,  that  a  bastard  is  not 
to  belong  to  the  gospel  church,  nor  yet  his 
children  to  the  tenth  generation  ?  Neither  was 
a  Moabite  to  enter  in  under  a  less  time  :  verse 
S,  "  An  Ammonite  or  a  Moabite  shall  not  enter 
into  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  ;  even  to 
their  tenth  generation."  Surely  it  will  never 
be  pretended  that  this  was  an  image  of  tie 
gospel  church,  and  that  very  church  itself.  It 
can  never  be  a  model  for  us  to  receive  mem- 
bers by,  when  a  mere  accidental  circumstance- 
of  parentage  or  country,  and  that  without  res- 
pect to  personal  vice,  is  a  prohibition  to  mem- 
bership. But  what  is  worse,  is,  that  a  person 
wounded  in  body  was  not  to  enter  into  that 
church  his  whole  life,  no  matter  how  pious  he 
might  be  :  Deut.  xxiii.  1.  Will  it  be  pre- 
tended, that  deformity  of  body  is  now  to  be  a 
bar;  that  misfortune  is  to  be  considered  as 


T2S 

crime,  and  made  the  foundation  of  still  greater 
privation  ?  Yet  such  must  be  the  christian 
church,  if  membership  in  the  one,  is  to  govern 
membership  in  the  other.  It  will  not  do  for 
Mr.  E.  to  say  these  things  are  done  away  ;  ft.r 
if  membership  has  been  altered  at  all,  then  his 
pica  for  infant  membership  is  at  once  gone  : 
and  beside,  he  told  us  the  "  man,  or  church" 
was  not  "  altered"  but  only  the  "  dress."  Will 
any  of  our  opponents  affirm,  no  grace  was  re- 
quired to  membership  in  the  gospel  church  ? 
Or  dare  they  assert,  that  grace  was  required  to 
entitle  an  adult  Jew  to  circumcision,  or  yet  a 
gentile  proselyte  ?  If  these  things  they  will  not 
pretend  to,  how  can  they  tell  us,  that  member- 
ship id  the  one  instance  is  the  rule  in  the 
other  ? 

"  Again — the  whole  nation  was  the  church  : 
the  most  abandoned  were  as  much  members  of 
it,  as  the  pious ;  the  nation  was  not  considered 
as  many  churches,  but  one  ;  and,  in  its  origin- 
al organization,  authority,  in  civil  and  religious 
affairs,  were  both  deposited  in  the  same  hands 
— priest  and  prince  were  recognized  in  the 
same  person — he  that  wore  the  mitre,  was  also 
a  general  in  the  field — the  same  persons  that 
sacrificed  tor  the  soul,  passed  sentence  of  death 
on  the  body.  That  the  Jewish  church  was  a 
national  one,  who  will  pretend  to  dinj  ? 

"  Every  abandoned  character  Mas  in  that 
church:  such  as  were  guilty  of  incest:  Geii. 
xxxviri.  18 — murder  :  Gen.  xxxiv.  25. — nor 
were  there  any  methods  of  separating-  them, 
unless  their  crimes  came  under  the  -slew  of  the 


129 

judicial  law,  and  they  were  punished  with 
death  :  but  can  any  man  affirm,  that  every 
monster  of  wickedness  is  to  be  in  the  gospel 
church,  until  separated  by  a  capital  punishment, 
by  the  civil  laws  ?  Yet,  if  no  alteration  is  made 
in  the  old  Jewish  church,  such  must  be  the 
case.  But,  as  was  before  said,  if  any  former 
members  are  cut  off,  away  goes  the  plea  for 
infant  membership  ;  for  it  rests  entirely  on  the 
two  churches  being  of  equal  extent.  The 
Jewish  church  was  but  one,  and  that  extended 
over  the  whole  country  ;  nor  were  the  syna- 
gogues considered  as  distinct  churches  :  but 
how  unlike  is  this  to  the  gospel  church  ?  for 
we  read  of  churches  in  Judea  :  Gal.  i.  22. — 
seven  churches  in  Asia:  Rev.  i.  11. — in  dif- 
ferent cities,  as  Corinth  :  1  Cor.  i.  2. — Philip- 
pi  :  1  Phil.  i.  1 — Ephesus :  Eph.  i.  1.  ;  and  a 
church  is  spoken  of  as  being  in  a  house  :  Rom. 
xvi.  15.  You,  reader,  are  left  to  judge  what 
credit  is  due  to  those  writers  who  affirm,  as 
does  Mr.  E.,  that  both  churches  are  the  same  : 
I  ask  you,  is  there  the  smallest  resemblance  ? 
While  we  see  priests  buried  in  war  :  Josh.  vi. 
4.  and  the  high  priest  presiding  in  a  court  of 
justice  and  pronouncing  sentence  of  death : 
Jno.  xviii.  13.  14. ;  does  this  look  like  the 
church  at  Jerusalem  ?  Does  not  Christ  refuse 
to  have  any  thing  to  do  in  their  civil  concerns  : 
Luke  xii.  .14.  Does  he  not  declare  his  king- 
dom is  not  of  this  world  :  Jno.  xviii.  36. ;  and 
does  he  not  say,  he  came  not  to  destroy  men's 
lives,  but  to  save  them  :  Luke  ix.  56.  But 
can  our  adversaries  pretend,  that  ciyii  and  reli- 


130 

gious  authority  are  deposited  in  the  hands  of 
the  clergy,  and  that  the  power  of  life  and  death 
are  with  them  ?  If  not,  then  the  churches  arc 
by  no  means  the  same ;  for  such  power  the 
Jewish  priesthood  had. 

Again,  the  duties  of  members  of  the  Jewish 
church  do  not,  in  the  least,  resemble  those  in 
the  christian  church.  In  that  church,  an  out- 
ward attention  to  sacrifices — tithes — rituals,  no 
matter  as  to  the  motives  which  influenced  them, 
or  whether  the  heart  Mas  in  them  or  not,  were 
all  that  the  law  required  of  them  ;  and  never 
do  we  hear  of  their  being  punished  for  any 
thing  but  an  outward  neglect.  But  the  duties 
of  the  members  of  a  gospel  church,  are  chiefly 
those  of  the  heart.  To  evince  this,  I  will  now 
produce  positive  commands  to  members  pf  the 
Jewish  church  ;  which,  if  they  are  considered 
as  a  religious  body,  are  incompatible  with  the 
church  of  Christ,  and  in  direct  hostility  to  his 
commands,  yea,  to  the  whole  gospel  scheme  : 
Exo.  xxi.  10.  "  If  he  take  him  another  wife  ; 
her  food,  her  raiment,  and  her  duty  of  marriage 
shall  not  be  diminished  ;"  with  which  contrast 
Luke  xvi.  18.  "  Whosoever  putteth  away 
Lis  wife,  and  marrieth  another,  committeth 
adultery  :"  Exo.  xxi.  24.  *;  Eye  for  eye, 
tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand ;"  contrasted  with 
Rom.  xii.  19.  "  Dearly  beloved  avenge  not 
yourselves,"  and  1  Thes.  v.  15.  "  See  that 
none  render  evil  for  evil  "  unto  any  man  :" 
Exo.  xxii.  10.  "  Six  years  thou  shalt  sow 
thy  land,  and  shalt  gather  in  the  fruits  thereof: 
but  the  seventh  year,  thou  shalt  let  it  rest  and 


131 

be  still ;"  contrasted  with  2  Thes.  iii.  10.  • If 
any  will  not  work,  neither  shall  he  eat.'  A 
witch  was  to  be  put  to  death  by  that  church  : 
Exo.  xxii.  18.  He  that  did  not  keep  the  sab- 
bath, was  to  be  put  to  death:  Exo.  xxxi.  14. 
They  were  to  put  the  idolater  to  death  :  Deut. 
xvii.  5.  They  were  to  put  to  death  those  that 
ate  the  blood  of  beasts* :  Lev.  xvii  10.  All 
the  congregation  were  to  stone  the  blasphemer  : 
Lev.  xxiv.  14.  They  were  to  stone  a  person 
who  taught  idolatry:  Deut.  xiii  9.  In  some 
cases  they  were  to  inflict  punishment  by 
stripes:  Deut.  xxv.  3. 

"  It  will  be  remembered,  that  this  putting  to 
death  was  for  sins  committed  either  against  the 
ceremonial  or  moral  law,  and  that  the  congre- 
gation or  churchy  were  to  be  the  executioners  : 
but,  brethren,  is  this  any  thing  like  the  church 
of  Christ  ?  Has  he  any  where  ordered  his  peo- 
ple to  inflict  the  punishment  of  death,  and  that 
in  a  chiircf)  capacity  ?  Was  there  one  instance 
of  any  being  stoned  by  them,  even  for  blasphe- 
my ?  Yea,  did  not  the  extent  of  the  powers  of 
a  gospel  church  consist  in  excommunication  ? 
Is  it  not,  therefore,  plain  that  the  Jewish  church 
was  more  of  a  civil,  than  a  religious  institution ; 
and  is  it  not  evident,  that  it  was  radically  dif- 
ferent from  the  gospel  church?  What  figure 
would  a  church  of  Jesus  Christ  make  in  drag- 
ging  an  idolater  or  a  blasphemer  forth,  to  en- 
compass  him  about,  and  stone  him  with  stones 
until  he  died:  yet,  brethren,  such  was  the 
church  which  Mr.  E.  calls  the  gospel  church. 
But  this  is  not  all ;  for  the  parent  was  to  put  to 


132 

tncath  his  oxvn  child:  Deut.  xxi.  31.:  and  is 
this  a  church  of  Christ  ?  Or  rather,  is  it  not  a 
mere  commonwealth,  or  civil  institution  ? 

"  In  the  second  chapter  of  Numbers,  every 
man  of"  Israel  is  commanded  to  learn  the  mili- 
tary profession,  to  perform  the  duties  of  a  sol- 
dier :  but  where  arc  such  precepts  to  the  church 
of  Christ?  Is  not  the  injunction,  *  as  much  as 
m  you  lies,  live  in  peace  with  all  men?'  Nothing 
will  serve  better,  to  shew  how  opposite  the  two 
wrere,  than  to  consider  two  passages  which 
were  suitable  to  the  Jewish  church,  as  such, 
but  never  could  suit  them  as  a  religious  body  ; 
and,  evident  it  is,  that  the  duties  of  the  gospel 
church  are  so  very  opposite,  the  one  could  ne- 
ver be  a  pattern  for  the  other.  "  Thou  shalt 
not  seek  their  peace,  nor  their  prosperity,  for- 
ever :"  Deut.  xxiii.  G.  "  Therefore  it  shall 
be,  when  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  given  thee 
rest  from  all  thine  enemies  round  about,  in  the 
land  which  the  Lord  thy  God  givcth  thee  for 
ari  inheritance  to  possess  it,  that  thou  shalt 
blot  out  the  remembrance  ofAmalek  from  under 
heaven  ;  thou  shalt  not  forget  it  /"  Deut.  xxv. 
19.  In  both  these  texts  are  inculcated  an  un- 
forgiving temper,  and  a  spirit  of  revenge.  Had 
the  Jews  been  a  religious  body,  as  the  church 
of  Christ  now  is,  such  precepts  never  would 
have  been  given  :  but  as  our  opponents  insist 
on  it,  they  were  a  religious  body,  and  hold 
them  up  as  an  example  to  us,  how  evident 
must  it  be,  to  a  reader  of  but  superficial  know- 
ledge, they  cannot  be  such,  when  the  laws  of 
Christ  are  so  opposite,  as  we  shall  shew,  and 


133 

tlieir  practice  so  different.  To  manifest  how 
opposite  the  duties  of  the  members  of  a  gospel 
church  are  to  those  of  the  Jewish,  take  the  fol- 
lowing texts:  u  Let  us  do  good  unto  all  men  :" 
Gal.  vi.  10.  "  But  I  say  unto  you,  love  your 
enemies,  bless  them  that  curse  you,  do  good  un- 
to them  that  hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  which 
despitefully  use  you,  and  persecute  you."  In- 
deed, an  hundred  passages  such  as  these  might 
be  produced,  to  evince  how  widely  different  the 
two  institutions  are,  and  that  what  was  obliga- 
tory on  one,  could  by  no  means  be  duty  in  the 
other ;  yet,  is  it  not  strange  that  they  should 
be  considered  as  one  and  the  same  church  ? 

"  The  only  expedient  which  our  opponents 
use  to  extricate  themselves  from  the  difficulty, 
is  to  say,  these  were  mere  civil  institutions, 
and  were  enjoined  on  them  not  as  a  church,  but 
merely  as  a  body  politic.  But  what  does  this 
amount  to  ?  Is  it  not  admitting  a  difference  be- 
tween them  and  the  christian  church,  when 
they  do  not  pretend  it  has  the  administration  of 
the  civil  law  in  its  hands,  and  do  they  not  ac- 
knowledge the  dissimilarity  ?  Indeed,  this  is  a 
concession  that  goes  to  the  ruin  of  their  cause, 
and  is  the  very  thing  we  have  been  contending 
for.  The  Jews  were  truly  a  civil  body ;  in  this 
light  they  are  to  be  viewed  :  but  the  church  of 
Christ  was  in  tio  respect  like  them ;  so  that 
while  adults  and  infants  were  of  necessity  a 
part  of  that  community,  it  cannot,  it  does  not 
follow,  they  are  to  be  members  of  an  institution 
purely  spiritual. 

"  Another  argument  respects  the  discipline. 

M 


134- 

In  the  gospel  church,  an  offended  member  was 
in  the  first  instance  to  tell  the  party  his  fault  by 
himself;  if  confession  was  made  he  was  bound 
to  forgive  :  if  no  confession  was  made,  he  was 
to  take  with  him  one  or  two  more  of  his  bre- 
thren— if  no  confession  still  was  made,  he  was 
to  give  the  matter  up  to  the  church,  to  judge 
between  them  :  Matt,  xviii.  The  punishment 
nfiicted  by  a  church  was  that  of  excluding  the 
person  from  their  fellowship ;  but  in  no  in- 
stance was  corporeal  punishment  inflicted. 
How  different  from  all  this  was  the  Jewish 
church!  Its  laws  took  no  notice  whatever 
of  offences  of  a  spiritual  kind ;  and  the  only 
offences  it  regarded  were  those  against  proper- 
ty, family,  reputation,  or  the  like.  Nor  were 
any  directions  given  to  admonish,  and  forgive  ; 
nor  yet  was  sorrow  for  an  offence,  in  any  in- 
stance, looked  upon  as  sufficient:  but  the 
command  was  to  obtain  satisfaction  according 
to  the  nature  of  the  offence,  either  in  restitu- 
tion, stripes,  or  death.  In  the  Church  of 
Christ,  every  christian  is  forbidden  to  go  to 
law  with  each  other,  and  especially  to  do  it  be- 
fore the  people  of  the  world ;  but  the  Jews 
were  on  every  occasion  to  appear  before  the 
judicial  authority.  From  the  Jewish  church 
theie  was  no  excommunication,  nor  could  a  Jew 
be  separated  any  other  way  than  by  death  :  and 
although  the  Pharisees  cast  the  blind  man  out 
of  the  synagogue,  yet  it  was  not  done  by  any 
law  of  Moses,  (for  no  such  law  was  ever  given 
by  him),  but  by  one  of  their  own  traditions. 
If  any  were  ever  excommunicated,  it  was  the 


135 

leper,  who  was  ordered  to  be  shut  out  of  the 
camp  :  but  then  this  was  for  a  bodily  malady, 
not  a  moral  evil ;  and  the  person  was  tempora- 
rily excluded  for  misfortune,  not  crime.  But 
how  different  is  this  from  the  gospel  church, 
from  whom  every  wicked  person  is  to  be  ex- 
eluded,  and  that,  not  on  account  of  natural  de- 
fect, but  moral  offences.  If  our  opponents  are 
right  in  the  opinion,  that  they  are  one  and  the 
same  church,  or  that  the  christian  church,  as 
to  members,  is  to  be  governed  by.  the  Jewish  ; 
then  every  vile  person  must  be  retained  in  our 
communion.  '  An  heretic  reject,  after  the  first 
and  second  admonition  :'  Tit.  hi.  10.  '  Put 
from  among  you  that  wicked  person  :'  1  Cor. 
-v.  13.  Brethren,  judge  ye,  if  the  two  churches 
are  the  same,  when  murderers,  incestuous  per- 
sons, and  every  species  of  wicked  men,  were 
retained  in  one,  but  cast  out  "of  the  other  :  Gen. 
xxxiv.  25.  and  xxxviii.  18.  1  Cor.  v.  11." 

Many  more  arguments  might  be  brought 
forward,  and  have  been  published  by  Dr.  Bald- 
win, of  Boston,  and  Mr.  William  White,  of 
Philadelphia,  to  evince  the  difference  of  the 
Jewish  and  the  christian  church,  but  enough 
has  been  said  to  prove  "the  falsity  of  Mr.  E.'s 
assertions,  that  the  Jewish  church  state  remains, 
and  having  shewn  that  the  two  churches  are 
radically  different,  and  that  infants  can  by  no 
means  be  members  of  the  gospel  church,  as 
they  were  of  the  Jewish  ;  I  shall  now  shew, 
that  some  things  are  said  of  the  gospel  church 
that  will  not  agree  with  infants.  The  church 
is  called  "  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth  ;P 


130 

Tim.  iii.  15.  but  can  it  be  said  of  infants, 
that  they  are  the  support  and  defence  of  the 
gospel  ?  The  church  is  said  to  be  subject  to 
Christ,  as  a  woman  ought  to  be  to  her  hus- 
band :  Eph.  v.  22.  but  are  infants,  indeed, 
subject  to  Christ  ?  Paul  persecuted  the  church, 
says  the  sacred  text :  Phil.  iii.  6.  but  did  he 
act  so  unmanly  as  to  persecute  infants  ?  It  is 
said  that  Saul  made  havoc  of  the  church  : 
Acts.  viii.  3.  can  it  be  thought  he  put  young 
children  to  death  ?  Certainly  not.  It  is  said, 
that  it  pleased  the  whole  church  (not  part  of 
them)  to  send  chosen  men  of  their  own  com- 
pany, to  Antioch  :  Acts.  xv.  22.  this  cannot 
-agree  with  infants;  for  it  was  impossible  that 
they  should  send  messengers.  Such  as  pro- 
phecy, are  said  to  edify  the  church  :  1  Cor. 
xiv.  15.  but  if  infants  were  members,  this 
could  only  be  true  of  a  part  of  them.  The 
church  were  not  to  be  charged  with  the  sup- 
port of  certain  widows:  1  Tim.  v.  16.  but 
would  it  not  be  nonsense  for  the  apostles  to 
direct  babes  not  to  support  the  widows  ?  The 
apostle  John  says,  "  I  wrote  to  the  church  :" 
3  Jno.  2.  but  it  is  ridiculous  so  to  talk,  if  in- 
fants were  in  it,  especially  if  the  children  of 
believers  were  such  ;  they  would  constitute 
the  majority.  In  Acts.  ix.  31.  "then  had 
the  churches  rest,  throughout  all  Judea  and 
Galilee  and  Samaria,  and  were  edified ;  and 
walked  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  com- 
fort of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Can  it  with  consis- 
tency be  said  of  little  sucking  infants,  that  they 
were  "  edified"  •'  -walked  in  the  fear  of  the 


137 

Lord"  and  u  were  comforted  of  the  Holy 
Ghost .?"  Yet  such  inconsistencies  are  with  our 
opponents.  It  is  said,  that  when  Ananias  and 
Sapphira  his  wife,  had  been  slain  by  the  Lord, 
"  great  fear  came  upon  all  (not  a  part  only)  the 
church  :"  Acts.  v.  11.  but  were  babes  afraid  ? 
Directions  are  given  to  aggrieved  members  of 
the  church  how  to  act,  and  their  instructions 
run  thus:  "And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear 
them,  tell  it  unto  the  church:  but  if  he  shall 
neglect  to  hear  the  church,"  See.  :  Matt,  xviii, 
17.  But  fiow  is  he  to  tell  his  case  to  infants  ? 
and  how  can  infants  speak  to  the  offending 
person  ? 

"  These,  and  numberless  other  texts  that 
might  readily  be  adduced,  afford  dignified  and 
obvious  proof  that  infants  were  not  in  the  apos- 
tolic churches ;  nor  can  our  opponents,  with 
all  their  subtle  logic,  evade  the  force  of  them. 
But  all  the  exhortations  and  warnings  address- 
ed to  the  members  of  churches,  prove  the  same 
thins:,  ah1  of  which  would  be  utterlv  inconsis- 
tent  were  infants  in  membership ;  besides 
which,  it  is  remarkable,  that  no  directions  are 
given  to  the  church  with  respect  to  such  in- 
fants: a  neglect  this,  that  never  would  have 
existed,  if  they  were  members,  and  which  can- 
not be  said  as  it  relates  to  the  Jewish  church. 
Does  it  appear  consistent,  that  exhortations 
should  be  addressed  to  the  church  by  name, 
and  which  do,  in  every  instance,  imply  the 
parties  having  grace  and  the  exercise  of  their 
understanding;  and  yet  no  directions  given  to 
the  church  respecting  infant  members,  if  they 

M  2 


138 

were  so  ;  but  all  the  exhortations  which  con- 
cern them  are  addressed  to  their  parents  ?  No 
duties  are  pointed  out  for  them  to  perform,  or 
others  to  perform  for  them  ;  nor  yet  is  there 
any  church  privilege  assigned  to  them,  nor 
could  they  enjoy  any  ;  nor  can  our  Lord's  act 
of  blessing  some  infants,  establish  their  right 
to  baptism,  or  church  membership,  for  we  have 
no  information  of  either  taking  place  ;  nor  yet 
did  he  leave  any  command  to  his  disciples  to 
follow  his  example  in  this  respect. 

"  Such  exhortations  and  cautions  as  these 
following,  are  in  all  the  epistles  directed  to  the 
church  in  general,  without  any  specification  of 
age  or  sex  :  "  Take  heed,  brethren,  lest  there 
should  be  in  any  of  you  an  evil  heart  of  unbe- 
lief:" Heb.  hi.  12.  "  Bear  ye  one  another's 
burdens  :"  Gal.  vi.  2.  "  If  a  brother  be  over- 
taken in  a  fault,  let  such  as  are  spiritual  restore 
him  :"  Gal.  vi.  1.  "  Not  forsaking  the  as- 
sembling of  yourselves  together:'  Heb.  x. 
25.  "  Examine  yourselves  whether  ye  be  in 
the  faith — Let  a  man  examine  himself  and  so 
let  him  eat  of  that  bread  :"  1  Cor.  xi.  "  Ye 
are  all  the  children  of  God  bv  faith  in  Christ 
Jesus  :"  Gal.  iii.  26.  "  Received  ye  the  Spi- 
rit by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing 
of  faith  :"  Gal.  iii.  2.  Such  quotations  would 
be  endless  ;  1  must  therefore  leave  it  to  the 
reader  to  judge  for  himself,  how  very  absurd 
such  addresses  would  be  if  made  to  infants  ; 
and  confident  I  am,  that  a  man  not  blinded  by 
prejudice,  never  will  maintain  the  membership 
of  infants."* 

*  WilU-m  Wrhite  of  Philadelphia. 


J  39 

In  page  17  you  say,  "  We  read  in  the  pro- 
phecy of  Jeremiah,  that  the  church  was  called 
an  olive  tree,  to  which  the  apostle  alludes  in 
Rom.  11th  chapter." 

If  your  description  of  the  Hebrew  church 
be  a  correct  one,  they  draw  all  their  sap  and 
fatness  from  themselves.  It  is  no  wonder  that 
we  read  of  so  few  of  them  being  perfect ;  you 
say  they  are  "  the  root,  body,  and  branches." 
We  grant  that  the  Jews  were  branches,  and 
some  of  them  were  broken  off  for  unbelief. 
But  we  cannot  admit  that  they  are  the  root,  as 
there  is  no  other  root  on  which  the  church  of 
Christ  now  grows,  than  that  on  which  they 
grew  from  the  beginning  :  your  description 
certainly  differs  materially  from  Paul's.  He 
speaks  of  two  olive  trees,  one  good,  the  other 
wild.  If  by  the  good  olive  tree  a  visible  church 
state  is  intended,  then  by  the  wild  olive,  the 
same  must  be  intended  also ;  or  else  we  cannot 
comprehend  the  apostle's  reasoning.  But  have 
we  read  of  any  thing  like  a  visible  church- 
state  among  the  gentiles  at  this  time  ?  Cer- 
tainly not;  consequently  such  a  state  among 
them  cannot  be  intended.  And  could  we  find 
no  better  way,  than  you  have  pointed  out,  we 
might  not  only  expect  to  be  lean  in  gospel 
graces,  but  lose  any  we  might  have,  and  be 
at  a  loss  to  understand  him.  But  as  the  scrip- 
tures are  rich  and  full,  for  edification  and  in- 
struction, we  shall  not  perhaps  search  in  vain 
for  a  better  root,  than  the  Hebrew  church,  of 
Abraham  the  father  of  the  nation.  He,  good 
man,  had  great  faith,  and  was  a  favorite  of  God, 


140 

but  had  no  oil  to  spare  no  more  than  the  wise 
virgins.  All  his  sap  and  fatness  must  have 
originated  from  a  better  source  than  himself; 
or  he  never  would  "  against  hope  have  believ- 
ed in  hope."  The  apostle  hath  given  us  a  de- 
scription of  two  great  heads  of  the  human  race 
:  n  Adam,  and  Christ.  All  were  in  Adam  when 
he  fell,  and  continue  to  be  in  him  until  cut  off 
by  the  law  of  God,  and  grafted  in  by  the  gospel. 
Then  they  stand  in  him  by  faith  ;  for  the  want 
of  which  the  Jewish  branches  were  broken  off; 
and  those  Romans  that  were  grafted  in  are 
said  to  "  stand  by  faith."  Consequently  the 
Jews  that  remained  must  have  stood  by  faith 
also.  The  gentiles,  that  were  grafted  in,  were 
taken  from  the  wild  olive,  "  said  to  be  cut  out 
of  the  olive  tree  which  is  wild  by  nature,  and 
wert  grafted  contrary  to  nature  into  a  good 
olive  tree."  When  he  speaks  of  the  Jews 
that  were  broken  off,  he  calls  them  branches, 
and  not  the  root.  If  some  of  the  Jews  were 
branches,  all  must  have  been  so.  If. they  were 
broken  off  for  unbelief,  the  greatest  part  were 
broken  off,  and  all  infants  must  have  been  with 
them,  for  you  have  never  pretended  to  prove 
they  had  faith,  (though  you  call  them  holy.) 
And  when  he  speaks  of  the  gentiles  that  were 
grafted  in,  he  says  "  among  them,"  (the  Jews) 
and  not  on  them,  "  and  with  them,"  (not  from 
them)  partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the 
olivetree,  1.  (Christ.)  2.  The  gentiles  being  cut 
off  from  their  root  Adam,  and  the  Jews  being 
broken  off  from  their  root,  Christ.  5.  Both  roots 
remain  to  this  day  ;  and  the  law  still  continues 


141 

JO  cut  off  branches  from  the  wild  olive,  and  the 
gospel  still  grafts  them  contrary  to  nature  in 
the  good  olive  tree,  Christ,  and  will  continue 
todo  so  until  the  fulness  of  the  gentiles  be  come 
in.  But  both  roots  still  remain  separate  and 
distinct,  and  will  remain  so  forever.  If  we 
thus  understand  the  apostle,  the  distinction  he 
makes  between  the  Jews  and  gentiles  is  a  clear 
and  correct  one  ;  and  notwithstanding  all  men 
in  a  state  of  nature,  whether  they  be  Jews  or 
gentiles,  are  properly  in  the  wild  olive  tree  ; 
jet  the  good  olive  might  by  the  apostle  be  cal- 
led properly  their  own  olive  tree  ;  for  they  were 
received  by  God  as  his  peculiar  people  in  a 
national  capacity — claimed  God  as  their  God — 
unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God 
— he  was  bone  of  their  bone — he  came  unto 
hijs  own,  though  his  own  received  him  not : 
Jno.  i.  11.  This  passage  of  the  blessed  Re- 
deemer's greatly  illustrates  the  one  before  us. 
"  I  am  the  true  vine,  and  my  Father  is  the 
husbandman,  every  branch  in  me  that  beareth 
not  fruit  he  taketh  away : "  this  shews  that  those 
Jewish  branches  that  were  broken  off  might 
be  in  him  in  a  sense,  and  still  fruitless  ones, 
and  as  the  apostle  says  unbelieving  ones  ;  and 
for  that  unbelief  broken  off  that  they  might 
wither  and  die,  and  be  burned.  Christ  must 
be  intended  by  the  good  olive  tree,  and  Jews 
and  gentiles  in  him  by  faith  receive  nourish- 
ment and  grow  up  "  to  an  heavenly  building 
in  the  Lord."  He  alone  can  in  the  strictest 
sense  be  cal'ed  the  holy  root,  "  and  if  the  root  be 
holy  so  arethe  branches,"  and  He  alone  has  a  suf- 


M2 

ficient  virtue,  or  fulness  of  holiness  in  himself 
to  communicate  sap  and  fatness  to  the  branch- 
es. It  is  unreasonable  to  believe  Abraham  or 
the  whole  Jewish  church  could  have  any  such 
fatness  to  communicate,  as  before  observed. 
No  man  hath  any  to  communicate,  any  to 
spire,  but  just  enough  for  himself  if  he  be 
Christs.  Hence  says  the  apostle,  "  Jf  the  first 
fruit  be  holy,  the  lump  is  also  holy  ;  and  if  the 
root  be  holy  so  are  the  branches  :"  v.  16.  By 
the  first  fruit,  we  understand  the  apostles,  and 
those  baptized  by  John.  These  are  called 
Christs'  church.  By  the  lump,  all  the  real 
believers  in  Christ,  are  intended  and  by  the 
root,  Christ  himself.  The  apostle  never  could 
have  intended  the  Jewish  church  as  the  root. 
There  is  not  any  account  of  it  in  any  age  that 
could  induce  us  to  believe  he  could  have  called 
them  holy.  But  if  the  Jews  had  been  intend- 
ed, it  would  have  rendered  your  cause  no  ser- 
vice. You  admit  those  that  were  broken  off 
were  unbelievers,  consequently  all  unbelievers 
must  have  been  broken  off,  and  unbelieving 
infants  among  the  rest,  and  as  they  that  stood, 
stood  by  faith,  they  must  have  had  faith  which 
infants  are  not  capable  of.  After  Christ  came 
in  the  flesh,  he  had  no  further  use  of  them  as 
a  nation,,  there  fore  those  tbuthad  a  living  faith 
in  him  stood  by  that  faith,  fhid  those  that  had 
not,  were  broken  off  from  then  own  olive  tree, 
and  the  gentiles  were  grafted  ki  contrary  to 
nature,  and  stand  by  faith. 

"  It  is  worthy  of  observation,"  says  Doctor 
Baldwin,   "  that  the  gentiles  are  \aid  to  be 


143 

grafted  in,  contrary  to  nature."  It  is  so,  in 
almost  every  sense.  The  whole  of  religion  is 
contrary  to  our  depraved  natures ;  but  more 
especially  in  the  following  things — 1.  We  ne- 
ver graft  a  scion  but  upon  the  principles  of  its 
being  better  than  the  stock  into  which  it  is  set. 
2.  The  scion,  though  grafted  into  another 
stock,  and  nourished  by  it,  still  retains  its  own 
nature,  and  bears  its  own  fruit.  3.  A  base 
stock  is  rendered  valuable,  in  consequence  of 
the  good  fruit  produced  by  the  ingrafted  part. 
But  in  grafting  in  the  gentiles,  all  is  reversed. 
They  are  not  chosen  on  account  of  their  own 
excellency,  but  on  Christ's  account.  By  be- 
ing grafted  into  this  holy  stock,  their  nature 
is  so  changed,  that  they  bring  forth  the  fruit 
of  holiness.  They  add  nothing  to  the  essen- 
tial value  of  the  stock  into  which  they  are 
grafted,  but  receive  all  their  excellence  from 
it. 

In  page  28th  you  say,  "  And  the  probability 
is  stronger  that  there  were  infants  in  the  house- 
hold, mentioned  in  scripture,  than  that  there 
were  not."  Why,  sir,  is  it  stronger?  "Because 
three  times  three  are  nine  ?"  Why  did  you  not 
examine  the  passages,  and  give  us  reasons 
founded  on  scripture,  and  fairly  deducible 
from  them  ?  Why  huddle  them  into  a  con- 
fused heap  of  nonsense  ?  You  might  as  well 
have  said,  it  is  more  probable  that  a  covenant 
of  grace  was  made  with  Abraham,  than  with 
Christ,  because  four  times  four  are  sixteen. 
Eut  as  you  were  afraid  to  bring  them  fairly 
to  public  view,  lest  you  should  be  detected, 


144 

and  your  assertions  found  to  be  erroneous ; 
we  will  shew  you,  all  that  we  want  is  a  fair 
investigation  of  scripture  to  maintain  our  apos- 
tolic example.  Acts.  xvi.  33.  "  And  he  took 
them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed 
their  stripes ;  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all 
his,  straightway.  And  when  he  had  brought 
them  into  his  house  he  set  meat  before  them, 
and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his 
house."  Will  you  venture  the  assertion  that 
the  family  did  not  believe  and  rejoice  in  God 
with  the  gaoler  ?  If  they  did  not  believe  and 
rejoice  how  could  it  be  said  that  the  gaoler  re- 
joiced, believing  in  God  with  them?  There 
was  a  mutual  rejoicing  and  believing  of  the 
whole  family.  "  Nor  need  we  wonder,"  says 
Mr.  White  "  that  a  family  rescued  thus  from 
eternal  destruction  should  feel  such  joy,  as  to 
be  thought  worthy  of  being  recorded  in  holy 
writ."  How  sir,  can  you  say  it  is  nine  to  one 
that  there  were  infants  in  these  families  ?  when 
it  is  said  v.  32,  "  They  spake  unto  him  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his 
house."  And  when  v.  34,  It  is  sail  all  his 
house  believed  as  well  as  himself.  How  can 
you  so  far  forget  yourself,  as  to  venture  such 
an  assertion?  when  the  express  declaration  is, 
"  and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his 
house."  Mr.  White  continues,  "  It  is  very 
remarkable,  that  in  all  the  instances  recorded 
of  households,  being  baptized,  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  been  careful  to  prevent  the  error  of  infant 
baptism,  or  infant  church  membership,  being 
thereby  encouraged  ;  and  this  hath  been  done 


145 

by  something  being  said  in  the  narrative  to 
prevent  the  idea  from  fairly  obtaining  that  in- 
fants were  in  such  households.  Thus  in  the 
ease  of  the  gaoler,  the  narrative  says  expressly, 
•'  the  word  of  the  Lord  was  preached  to  him, 
and  all  that  were  in  his  house,  and  that  before 
baptism  was  administered  to  any  one  ©f  them  ; 
that  he  believed  with  all  his  house :  from 
whence  it  must  be  readily  inferred  that  infants 
were  not  there  ;  for  they  cannot  hear  the  word 
of  the  Lord,  nor  yet  believe  in  Christ.  So 
also  in  the  case  of  Lydia,  there  is  no  proof  she 
was  a  married  woman,  or  had  an  husband  ;  for 
had  that  been  the  case,  no  one  can  account  for 
the  house  going  under  her  name,  and  not  her 
husband's  ;  and  it  is  improbable  that  she  would 
leave  the  city  of  Thyatira,  and  come  to  Philip- 
pi  'in  the  character  of  a  female  merchant,  a 
seller  of  purple  ;  much  less  if  she  had  young 
children  and  a  husband  also.  It  is  evident  her 
household  were  servants,  or,  if  children,  such 
as  had  arrived  to  years  of  maturity,  and  that 
because  in  the  40th  verse  it  is  said,  "  Paul  and 
Silas  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia,  and 
when  they  had  seen  the  brethren  they  comfort- 
ed them  :"  her  household  are  here  called  bre- 
thren, are  said  to  have  been  comforted; 
"  which  could  not  have  taken  place  had  they 
been  infants.  The  household  of  Stephanas  is 
said  to  be  the  firsts  fruits  of  the  gospel  in 
Achaia.  "  I  beseech  you  brethren,  (ye  know 
the  house  of  Stephanas,  and  that  it  is  the  first 
fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have  addicted 
themselves  to  the  ministry   of  the  saints) :  1 


148 

Cor.  xvh  15.     If  there  had  beln  infants  in  that 
household,  they  could  not  be  a  fruit  of  the  gos- 
pel, for  that  intends  conversion  to  God :   nor 
yet  could  they  minister  to  the  saints.     Surely 
it  will  not  be  said  that  infants  could  minister 
to  the  apostles  wants."     The  evident  result 
therefore  is  in  direct  opposition  to  your  9  to  1, 
and  instead  of  infants  ever  having  had  a  place 
in  the  gospel  church,  the  reverse  is  the  fact. 
So  that  there  is  no  express  law  necessary  to 
discountenance  that  which  was  never  thought 
of,  consequently  there  is  no  occasion  for  a  Thus 
saith  the  Lord,  to  leave  them  where  Christ  and 
his  apostles  left  them.     And  as  to  what  you 
say  of  depriving  them  of  their  right,  you  have 
failed  in  proving  their  right,  and  you  have  not 
shewn  what  advantage  it  will  be  to  them,  were 
they   sprinkled.     Your  arguments  from   cir- 
cumcision are  inadmissible,  as  we  have  proven 
that  baptism  did  not  succeed  it,  but  is  a  nevy 
and  gospel  institution  ;  and  that  citizenship  in 
the  Jewish  commonwealth,  of  which   infants 
were  of  necessity  members,  is  no  argument 
for  christian  church  membership,  under   the 
gospel  dispensation,  particularly  as  the  two  are 
so  radically  different  from   each  other,  as  we 
have  sufficiently  shown :  that  there  is  no  in- 
ferring membership  in  the  one  instance  from 
the  other.     We  have   confuted  you  in  your 
household  baptisms !  and  as  you  havo  not  in 
.any  one  instance  proved  that  infants  were  mem- 
bers in  the  gospel  church ;  or  that  Christ,  or 
his  apostles,  either  ordered  it,  or  even  counte- 
.  jianced  it ;  we  boldly  say  from  scripture  au. 


thority,  they  arejnot  to  be  members  of  the  visi- 
ble church  of  Christ,  either  with,  or  without 
baptism. 

Now,  sir,  as  you  have  labored  to  shew  us 
the  signification  of  baptism,  and  have  brought 
forward  all  your  strength  to  little  purpose ; 
we  will  set  before  you,  a  few  of  the  abundant 
testimonies  in  our  possession,  from  those  that 
have  differed  with  us  in  practice  ;  authorities 
that  are  undeniable,  and  respectable.  You 
will  then  be  able  to  judge,  whether  the  author 
from  whom  you  have  extracted  your  informa- 
tion, deserves  credit. 

I.  We  shall  offer  a  few  testimonies,  concern- 
ing the  nature,  obligation,  and  importance  of 
positive  institutions  in  religion. 

1.  Dr.  Owen  :  "  Positive  institutions — are 
the  free  effects  of  the  will  of  God,  depending 
originally  and  solely  on  Revelation,  and  which 
therefore  have  been  variously  and  actually 
changed." 

2.  Buddeus :  "The  obligation  by  which 
men  are  bound  rightly  to  use  positive  appoint- 
ments, is  to  be  derived  from  the  moral  law 
itself;  by  which  it  is  manifest,  that  men  are 
obliged  to  do  all  those  things  by  which  their 
eternal  felicity  may  be  promoted.  God  had 
the  wisest  reasons,  why  lie  would  have  an  ap- 
pointment administered  in  this  or  the  other 
manner.  It  is  not  lawful  therefore,  for  men  to 
alter  any  thing,  or  to  mutilate  the  appointment. 
Thus  the  sacraments  are  to  be  used,  not  ac- 
cording to  our  own  pleasure,  but  in  the  man- 
ner appointed  by  God. 


148 

3.  Dr.  J.  G.  King,  on  the  rites  and  ceremo- 
nies of  the  Greek  church  in  Russia,  p.  12  : 
"  Positive  duties,  having  no  obligation  in  the 
reason  of  things,  can  have  no  foundation  but 
in  the  express  words  of  the  institutor,  from 
which  alone  they  derive  their  authority." 

4.  Mr.  Jonathan  Edwards  :  "  Those  laws, 
whose  obligations  arise  from  the  nature  of 
things,  and  from  the  general  state  and  nature 
of  mankind,  as  well  as  from  God's  positive 
revealed  will,  are  called  moral  laws.  Others, 
whose  obligation  depends  merely  upon  God's 
positive  and  arbitrary  institution,  are  not  mor- 
al ;  such  as  the  ceremonial  laws,  and  the  pre- 
cepts of  the  gospel  about  the  two  sacraments.'* 
Positive  "precepts  are  the  greatest  and  most 
proper  trial  of  obedience  ;  because  in  them  the 
mere  authority  and  will  of  the  legislator,  is  the 
sole  ground  of  The  obligation,  and  nothing  in 
the  nature  of  the  things  themselves ;  and  there- 
fore they  are  the  greatest  trial  of  any  person's 
respect  to  that  authority  and  will."  Sermon 
on  important  subjects  :  page  79. 

5.  Gerhardus  :  *' Seeing  that  a  sacrament 
depends  entirely  on  the  appointment  of  God, 
when  we  do  not  what  God  has  appointed,  it 
certainly  will  not  be  a  sacrament." 

6.  Bishop  Burnet :  "Sacraments  are  positive 
precepts,  which  are  to  be  measured  only  by 
the  institution,  in  which  there  is  no  room  It  ft 
for  us  to  carry  them  any  further.*'* 

II.  Concerning  the  signification  of  the  terms 
baptize  and  baptism. 

•  Bryant'*  hbridguaent  ui Booth's  Fscdobaptisra  examined. 


148 

1.  Gurtlcrus  :  "  To  baptize,  among  the 
Greeks,  is  undoubtedly  to  immerse,  to  dip :  and 
baptism,  is  immersion,  dipping.'  Baptitmos  en 
Pneumati  agio,  baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  is 
immersion  into  the  pure  waters  of  the  Holy 
Spirit :  for  he  on  whom  the  holy  spirit  is  pour- 
ed out,  is  as  it  were  immersed  into  him — 
Baptismos  en  puri,  baptism  in  fire,  is  a  figura- 
tive expression,  and  signifies  casting  into  a 
flame,  which,  like  water,  flows  far  and  wide  ; 
such  as  the  flame  that  consumed  Jerusalem — 
the  thing  commanded  by  our  Lord,  is  baptism, 
immersion  into  water." 

2.  Buddeus:  "  The  words  baptizcin  and  bap- 
tismos,  are  not  to  be  interpreted  of  aspersions  ; 
but  always  of  immersion." 

3.  Salmasius  :  "  Baptism  is  immersion ;  and 
was  administered  in  former  times,  according 
to^  the  force  and  meaning  of  the  word." 

4.  Calvin  :  "  The  word  baptize,  signifies  to 
immerse  ;  and  the  rite  of  immersion,  was  ob- 
served by  the  ancient  church."  Ins.  Chr.  Rel. 
L.  iv.  ch  :   15: 

5.  Beza :  "  Christ  commanded  us  to  be  bap- 
tized, by  which  word,  it  is  certain  immersion 
is  signified — Babtizesthai,  in  this  place,  is 
more  than  Cherniptein  ;  because  that  seems  to> 
respect  the  whole,  this  only  the  hands.  Nor 
does  baptizein'signify  to  wash,  except  by  con- 
sequence :  for  it  properly  signifies  to  immerse 
for  the  sake  of  dying*  To  be  baptized  in  wa- 
ter, signifies  no  other  than  to  be  immersed  in 
water ;  which  is  the  external  ceremony  of  bap- 
tism— Baptizo  differs  from  the  verb  dunax, 

N  3 


150 

which  signifies  to  plunge  in  the  deep  and  to 
drown." 

6.  Vitringa  :  c<  The  act  of  baptizing,  is  the 
immersion  of  believers  in  water.  This  ex- 
presses the  force  of  the  word.  Thus  also  it 
was  performed  by  Christ  and  his  apostles." 

7.  Luther  :  "  The  term  baptism,  is  a  Greek 
word.  It  may  be  rendered  a  dipping,  when 
we  dip  something  in  water,  that  it  may  be  en- 
tirely covered  with  water." 

8.  Venema  :  "  The  word  baptizein,  to  bap- 
tize, is  no  where  used  in  scripture  for  sprink- 
ling." 

9.  Anonymous  :  "  That  the  letter  of  the 
scripture  is  in  favor  of  the  baptists,  cannot 
without  evasion  and  equivocation,  be  denied  :" 
London  Review,  for  June  1776 — .p.  489. 

10.  Dr.  Doddridge:  "  I  have,  indeed,  a  most 
dreadful  baptism,  to  be  baptized  with,  aiyi 
know  that  I  shall  shortly  be  bathed,  as  it  were, 
in  blood,  and  plunged  in  the  most  overwhelm- 
ing distress  :"  Paraphrase,  on  Luke  xii.  50. 

11.  Anonymous  :  k<  The  word  baptize,  doth 
certainly  signify  immersion,  absolute  and  total 
immersion,  in  Josephus  and  other  Greek  wri- 
ters. 'Hitherto  the  antipasdobaptists  seem  to 
have  had  the  best  of  the  argument,  on  the  mode 
of  administering  the  ordinance  :  the  most  ex- 
plicit authorities  are  on  their  side.  Their  op- 
ponents have  chiefly  availed  themselves  of  in- 
ferences, analogy,  and  doubtful  construction  :" 
Monthly  Review  for  May,  1784 — p.  3VG. 

Reflections  from  Bryant's  abridgment  of 
Pcedobaptism,  examined  bv  A.  Booth — pages 
31  to  34. 


151 

«'  It  should  be  well  observed,  that  when  our 
Lord  after  his  resurrection  says,  go  baptize  ; 
he  docs  not  mention  baptism  by  way  of  allusion 
or  incidentally.     No,  he  speaks  the  language 
of  legislation:  he  delivers  divine  law.    He 
mentions  and  appoints  baptism  as  an  ordinance 
of  God,  as  a  branch  of  human  duty:  where 
then  must  we  expect  precision  in  the  use  of 
terms,  if  not  on  such  an  occasion  ?  Can  it  be 
supposed,  without  impeaching  the  wisdom  or 
goodness  of  Christ,  that  he  enacted  a  law  re- 
lating to  his  own  worship,  the  principle  term 
in  which  is  obscure  and  ambiguous?  Can  it 
be  imagined  that  he  intended  an  ambiguity  so 
great  in  the  term  baptism,  which  prescribes 
the  duty  to  be  performed,  as  equally  to  war- 
rant the  use  of  immersion,  of  pouring,  or  of 
sprinkling,  which  are  three  different  actions  ? 
We  may'  safely  challenge  our  opposers  to  pro- 
duce an  instance  of  this  kind  out  of  the  Mosaic 
ritual.     Does  Jehovah,  when  giving  his  posi- 
tive laws,  make  use  of  a  word  that  signifies 
dipping  ?  He  means  as  he  speaks,  and  requires 
immersion,  in  contradistinction  to  pouring  or 
sprinkling.     Does  he  on  the  one  hand,  employ 
a  word  which  properly  understood,   signifies 
pouring?  Or  does  he  choose  an  expression, 
the  radical   idea  of  which   is  no  other  than 
sprinkling  ?  He  still  means  as  he  speaks,  and 
enjoins  what  he  mentions,  in  distinction  from 
every  other  action. 

That  dipping,  pouring  and  sprinkling,  de- 
note three  different  actions,  in  the  language  of 
divine  law,  as  well  as  in  the  estimate  of  com- 


152 

mon  sense,  we  have  many  examples  in  the 
■writings  of  Moses.  The  following  are  select- 
ed for  the  readers  notice.  And  the  priest  shall 
dip  bapsei,  (Septuag)  his  finger  in  the  blood, 
and  sprinkle,  prosranei,  of  the  blood  seven 
times  before  the  Lord.  And  the  priest  shall 
pour,  ekcheei,  all  the  blood  of  the  bullock  at 
the  bottom  of  the  altar.*  Moses  took  of  the 
anointing  oil,  and  he  sprinkled,  erranen,  there- 
of, upon  the  altar  seven  times — and  he  poured 
epechei,  of  the  anointing  oil  upon  Aaron's 
head.  Moses  sprinkled,  proechci,  the  blood 
upon  the  altar  round  about,  and  he  washed, 
eplunen,  the  inwards  and  the  legs  in  water,  f 
He  dipt,  ebapse,  his  finger  in  the  blood — and 
he  poured  out  exechein,  the  blood  at  the  bot- 
tom of  the  altar.  And  Aaron's  sons  presented 
unto  him  the  blood,  which  he  sprinkled  prose- 
chein,  round  about  upon  the  altar  —and  he  did 
wash,  eplune,  the  inwards.J  As  for  the  living 
bird,  he  shall  take  it  and  the  cedar  wood,  and 
the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop,  and  shall  dip  them, 
bapsei  auta,  and  the  living  bird,  in  the  blood  of 
the  bird  that  was  killed.  And  he  shall  sprinkle, 
perirranei,  upon  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  from 
the  leprosy  seven  times — and  he  that  is  to  be 
cleansed  shall  wash,  plunei,  his  clothes,  and 
shave  off  his  hair,  and  -wash  himself,  lousetai, 
in  water,  that  he  may  be  clean. §  And  who- 
soever toucheth  his  bed  shall  zvash,  plunei,  his 
clothes,  and  bathe  himself,  lonsetai,  in  water.fi 

•  Levit.  iv.  6.  7- 17 18.     f  Levit.  viii.  11. 12. 19.  21.     i  Chnp. 
tx.  9.  12-  14. 

$  UTit.  xir.  6.  7.  8.    J  Chap.  xr.  5.  $► 


153 

So  in  the  new  testament,  washing  the  feet  is 
distinguished  from  bathing  the  whole  body, 
washing  a  part  of  the  body  from  being  baptized, 
and  baptism  from  washing ;  as  appears  from 
the  following  instances.  He  that  is  washed, 
(or  has  been  bathing  6  leloumenos)  needeth  not 
save  to  wash  his  feet,  pedas  nipsasthai.J  He 
took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and 
washed,  elousen,  their  stripes,  and  was  bap- 
tized, ebaptisthe,  he  and  all  his  straightway. 
Arise  and  be  baptized,  baptisai,  and  wash 
away  apalousai,  thy  sins.§  By  which  it  ap- 
pears, that  as  tasting  in  the  language  of  scrip-- 
ture,  is  distinguihed  from  drinking;  so  are 
washing  the  feet  fom  bathing  the  whole  body, 
and  washing  a  part  of  the  body  from  being" 
baptized.  With  what  reason  or  shadow  of 
propriety,  then,  can  any  pretend  that  the  term 
baptism  is  equally  expressive  of  these  different 
actions. 

Were  the  leading  term  in  any  human  law  to 
have  an  imbiguity  in  it  equal  to  that  for  which 
our  brethren  plead  with  regard  to  the  word 
baptism,  such  law  would  certainly  be  consider- 
ed as  betraying  either  the  weakness  or  the  wick- 
edness of  the  legislator  ;  and  be  condemned  as 
opening  a  door  to  perpetual  chicane,  and  pain- 
ful uncertainty.  Far  be  it,  then,  from  us  to 
suppose,  that  our  gracious  and  omniscient  Lord 
should  give  a  law  relating  to  divine  worship, 
and  obligatory  on  the  most  illiterate  of  his  real 
disciples,  which  may  be  fairly  construed  to 
mean  this,  that,  or  the  other  action — a  law, 
4  Jao.  xiii.  10.  $  Acta.  xvi.  33.  and  22. 16,, 


154 

which  is  calculated  to  excite  and  perpetuate 
contention  among  his  wisest  and  sincerest  fol- 
lowers— a  law,  in  respect  to  its  triple  meaning, 
that  would  disgrace  a  Congress  or  British  par- 
liament, as  being  involved  in  the  dark  ambi- 
guity of  a  Pagan  oracle — it  must,  therefore,  be 
at  our  peril,  if  we  indulge  a  wantcn  fancy  in 
the  interpretation  of  that  law  which  is  now  be- 
fore us :  For  as  Mr.  Charnock  observes,  "  Tis 
a  part  of  God's  sovereignty  to  be  the  interper- 
ter,  as  well  as  the  maker,  of  his  own  laws  ;  as 
it  is  a  right  inherent  in  the  legislative  power 
among  men.  So  that  it  is  an  invasion  of  his 
right  to  fasten  a  sense  upon  his  declared  will, 
which  cloth  not  naturally  flow  from  the  words. 
For  to  put  any  interpretation  according  to  our 
pleasure  upon  divine  as  well  as  human  laws, 
contrary  to  their  true  intent,  is  a  virtual  usur- 
pation of  this  power  ;  because,  if  lawrs  may  be 
interpreted  according  to  our  humors,  the  pow- 
er of  the  law  would  be  more  in  the  interpreter, 
than  in  the  legislator  ?* 

III.  Concerning  the  design  of  baptism  ;  or 
the  facts  and  blessings  represented  by  it,  both 
in  regard  to  our  Lord  and  his  disciples. 

1.  Dr.  Robert  Newton  :  "  Baptism  was  usu- 
ally performed  by  immersion,  or  dipping  the 
whole  body  under  water,  to  represent  the 
death,  and  burial)  and  resurrection  of  Christ 
together  ;  and  therewith  to  signify  the  persons 
own  dying  to  sin,  the  destruction  of  its  power, 
and  his  resurrection  to  new  life.      St  Paul 


•  Of  man's  eiHiitv  to  G»d— p. -98. 


*> 


In  V 
3D 

plainly  refers  to  this  custom:"  Rom.  vi.    4: 
Pract.  Expo.  Cat.  p.  2S7,  298. 

2.  A.  H.  Frankius  :  "  The  baptism  of  Christ 
represented  his  sufferings:  Matt.  xx.  22— 
and  his  coming  up  cut  of  the  water,  his  resur- 
rection from  the  dead."  Prog.  Program.  14. 
p.  343. 

3.  Mr.  Saurin :  "  Paul  says,  '  We  are  bu- 
ried with  him  by  baptism  into  death  :'  that  is, 
the  ceremony  of  wholly  immersing  us  in  water, 
when  we  were  baptized,  signified,  that  as  we 
died  to  sin ;  and  that  of  raising  us  again  from 
our  immersion,  signified,  that  we  would  no 
more  return  to  those  disorderly  practices,  in 
which  we  lived  before  our  conversion  to  Chris- 
tianity."    Sermons,  vol.  3.  p.  171. 

4.  Mr.  Polhill :  "  Where  baptism  is  in  the 
right  use,  there  is  a  seal  of  union  with  Christ. 
They  have  the  power  of  death  in  his  mortifica- 
tion, and  the  power  of  his  resurrection  in  a 
divine  life :  the  one  is  notably  adumbrated  iri 
the  baptismal  immersion  into  the  water :  the 
other,  in  the  eduction  out  of  it."  Mystical 
Union,  Chap.  7.  p.  202,  203. 

5.  Turrettiaus  :  The  passage  of  the  Israel- 
ites through  the  red  sea,  wonderfully  agrees 
with  our  baptism,  and  represents  the  grace  it 
was  designed  to  express ;  for  as,  in  baptism 
when  performed  in  the  primitive  manner,  by 
immersion  and  emersion,  descending  into  the 
watert  and  again  going  out  of  it,  of  which  de- 
scent and  ascent  we  have  an  example  in  the 
.Eunuch,  Acts.  viii.  38.  39. — yea,  and  what  is 
jpore  by  this  rite,  when  persons  are  immerse^ 


15(5 

in  water,  they  are  overwhelmed,  and  as  it  were 
buried,  and  in  a  manner  buried  together  -with 
Christ  ;  and  again  when  they  emerge,  seem  to 
be  raised  out  of  the  grave,  and  are  said  to  rise 
again  with  Christ :  Rom.  vi  4.  5. — Col.  ii. 
12  — as  in  former  times,  the  persons  to  be 
baptized  were  immersed  in  the  water,  continu- 
ed under  the  water,  and  emerged  out  of  it: 
Matt.  iii.  16. — Acts.  viii.  37. — so  the  old  man 
died  in  and  was  buried,  and  the  new  man  arose : 
Rom.  vi.  4.— Col.  ii.  12."  Disp.  de  Bap.  Nu- 
bis,  Tom.  3.  Loc.  19. 

6.  Scudder  :  "  Baptism,  doth  lively  repre- 
sent the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of 
Christ :  Rom.  vi.  3.  4.  5.— Col.  ii.  11.  \2.  13. 
Daily  walk,  Cap.  5.  p.  95. 

7.  Grotius :  "  Buried  with  him  by  baptism. 
Not  only  the  word  baptism,  but  the  very  form 
of  it,  intimates  this.  For  an  immersion  of  the 
whole  body  in  the  water,  so  that  it  is  no  longer 
beheld,  bears  an  image  of  that  burial  which  is 
given  to  the  dead.  So  Col.  ii.  12.  There 
was  in  baptism,  as  administered  in  former 
times,  an  image  both  of  a  burial  and  of  a  re- 
surrection ;  which  in  respect  of  Christ,  was 
external ;  in  regard  to  ^christians,  internal/' 
In  Rom.  vi.  4.— Col.  ii;  12. 

8.  Wolfius :  "  Immersion  into  water,  in 
former  times,  and  a  short  continuance  under 
the  water,  practised  by  the  ancient  church,  af- 
forded the  representation  of  a  burial  in  bap- 
tism."    Curai.  ad  Rom.  vi.  4. 

Reflections — p.  60,  61. 

£  Baptism  being  a  gracious  appointment  oC 


157 

God,  it  must  have  an  important  meaning;  and 
as  it  is  a  positive  ordinance,  the  whole  of  its 
design  must  be  fixed  by  divine  institution. 
For  we  have  no  more  authority  to  invent  a 
signification  for  any  rite  of  holy  worship,  than 
we  have  to  appoint  the  rite  itself.  The  design 
of  baptism,  therefore,  must  be  learned  from  the 
New  Testament,  and  that  part  of  that  sacred 
volume,  as  has,  an  immediate  reference  to  it. 

Were  we  divested  of  partiality  and  prepos- 
session, there  is  reason  to  conclude  that  it 
would  not  be  very  difficult  to  discover  the 
chief  design  of  our  Lord  in  his  positive  ap- 
pointments. The  following  words  of  Dr. 
Owen,  are  here  worthy  of  notice.  '  This  was 
a  great  part  of  the  imperfection  of  legal  insti- 
tutions, that  they  taught  the  things  which  they 
signified  and  represented  obscurely,  and  the 
mind  of  God  in  them  Was  not  learned  but  with 
great  difficulty--* but  all  the  ordinances  and  in- 
stitutions of  the  gospel  do  give  light  into  and 
exhibit  the  things  themselves  unto  the  minds 
and  faith  of  believers.  Hereon  they  discern 
the  reasons  and  grounds  of  their  use  and  bene- 
fit ;  whence  our  whole  worship  is  called  our 
reasonable  service  :'  Rom.  xii.  1.* 

IV.  Concerning  the  practice  of  John  the 
Baptist,  of  the  apostles,  and  of  the  church  in 
succeeding  ages,  in  regard  to  the  manner  of 
administering  the  ordinance  ojfbajrtism. 

1.  Piscator:  **  Udata  polla,  signifies  many 
rivers ;  as  udor,  in  the  singular  number,  de- 
noted the  river  Jordan.     This  is  mentioned  to 

•  On  Heb.  vii.  11— vol.  3.  p.  III. 

o 


158 

signify  the  ceremony  of  baptism,  which  John 
used  ;  that  is,  immersing  the  whole  body  of  a 
person  standing  in  the  river.  Whence  Christ 
being  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan,  is  said  to  as- 
cend out  of  the  water  :  Matt.  3  :  the  same  man- 
ner was  observed  by  Philip:"  Acts.  viii.  38. 

2.  Calvin :  M  From  these  words,  John  iii. 
23.  it  may  be  inferred,  that  baptism  was  ad- 
ministered by  John  and  Christ,  by  plunging 
the  whole  body  under  water.  Here  we  per- 
ceive how  baptism  was  administered  among 
the  ancients ;  for  they  immersed  the  whole 
b»dy  in  water.  Now  it  is  the  prevailing  prac- 
tice for  a  minister  only  to  sprinkle  the  body  or 
the  head."  In  Joan  iii.  23.  Comment,  ill 
Acts.  viii.  38: 

3.  Mosheim  :  "  The- exhortations  of  this 
respectable  messenger,  (John the  Baptist)  Mere 
not  without  effect ;  and  those  who,  moved  by 
his  solemn  admonitions,  had  formed  the  reso- 
lution of  correcting  their  evil  dispositions  and 
amending  their  lives,  were  initiated  into  the 
kingdom  of  the  Redeemer,  by  the  ceremony 
of  immersion,  or  baptism  :  Matt.  iii.  6.  John 
i.  22.  The  sacrament  of  baptism  was  admin- 
istered in  this  (the  second)  century,  without 
the  public  assemblies,  in  places  appointed  and 
prepared  for  that  purpose,  and  was  performed 
by  immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  the  baptis- 
mal font.  Those  adult  persons,  that  desired 
to  be  baptized  (among  the  collegiants)  received 
the  sacrament  of  baptism,  according  to  the 
Ancient  and  primitive  manner  of  celebrating 
that  institution,  even  by  immersion." 


159 

4.  Dr.  Priestly  :  V  It  is  certain  that  in  very- 
early  times,  there  is  no  particular  mention 
made  of  any  person  being  baptized  by  sprink* 
ling  only,  or  a  partial  application  of  water  to 
the  body:"  Hist.  Corrupt. — vol.  2.  p.  67. 

5.  Grotius  :  "  That  baptism  used  to  be  per- 
formed by  immersion,  and  not  pouring,  ap* 
pears  both  from  the  proper  signification  of  the 
word,  and  the  places  chosen  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  rite.  John  iii.  23.  Acts.  viii. 
38  ;  and  also  from  the  many  allusions  of  the 
apostles,  which  cannot  be  referred  to  sprink- 
ling :"  Rom.  vi.  3.  4.  Col.  ii.  12.  Apud 
Polum,  Synops.  ad  Matt.  iii.  6. 

6.  Assembly  of  Divines  :  "  Were  baptized 
— washed  by  clipping  in  Jordan,  as  Mark  viu 
4.  Heb.  ix.  10.  Buried  with  him  by  baptism. 
See  Col.  ii.  12.  In  this  phrase  the  apostle 
seemeth  to  allude  to  the  ancient  manner  of 
baptism,  which  was  to  dip  the  parties  baptized, 
and  as  it  were  to  bury  them  under  the  water  a 
"While,  and  then  draw  them  out  of  it,  and  lift 
them  up,  to  represent  the  burial  of  our  old 
man,  and  our  resurrection  to  newness  of  life. 
Annotat.  on  Matt.  iii.  G.    Rom.  iv.  4. 

7.  Mr.  Joseph  Mede  :  "  There  was  no  such 
thing  as  sprinkling,  or  rantismos,  used  in  bap- 
tism in  the  apostle's  days,  nor  many  years  after 
them." 

8.  Bossuet :  "  The  bap-ism  of  John  the 
Baptist,  which  served  for  a  preparative  to  that 
of  Jesus  Christ,  was  performed  by  plunging. 
When  Jesus  Christ  came  to  John,  to  raise 
baptism  to  a  more  marvellous  eff.cacy  in  re- 


I  (TO 

ceiving  it,  the  scripture  says,  that  he  went  up 
out  of"  the  water  of  Jordan  :  Matt.  iii.  16. 
Mark  i.  10.  In  fine  we  read  not  in  the  scrip- 
tures that  baptism  was  otherwise  administer- 
ed ;  and  we  are  able  to  make  it  appear,  by  the 
acts  of  councils,  and  by  the  ancient  rituals,  that 
for  thirteen  hundred  years,  baptism  was  thus 
administered  throughout  the  whole  church, 
as  far  as  was  possible."  In  Mr.  Stennett,  ag. 
Russen.  p.  175. 

9.  Mr.  Chambers  :  t%  In  the  primitive  times 
this  ceremony  was  performed  by  immersion  ; 
as  it  is  to  this  dav  in  the  oriental  churches,  ac- 
cording  to  the  original  signification  of  the 
word."  Diet :  Cyclo  :  Article,  Baptism  ; 
Edition  7th. 

10.  Mr.  John  Wesley  :  "  Mary  Welsh,  a- 
ged  eleven  days,  was  baptized  according  to 
the  custom  of  the  first  church  by  immersion. 
The  child  was  ill  then,  but  recovered  from  that 
hour — Buried  with  him — alluding  to  the  an- 
cient manner  of  baptizing  by  immersing." — 
Extract  of  Mr.  J.  Wesley's  Journal,  from  his 
embarking  for  Georgia,  p.  11. 

11.  Dr.  Wall.  tl  Their  (the  primitive  chris- 
tians) general  and  ordinary  way  was  to  baptize 
by  immersion,  or  dipping  the  person,  whether 
it  were  an  infant  or  grown  man  or  woman,  into 
the  water.  This  is  so  plain  and  clear  by  infi- 
nite numbers  of  passages,  that  as  one  cannot 
but  pity  the  weak  endeavors  of  such  Prcdo- 
baptists  as  would  maintain  the  negative  of  it ; 
so  also  we  ought  to  disown  and  show  a  dislike 
to  the  profane  scoffs  which  some  people  give 


161 

to  the  English  Antipsedoqaptiste,  merely  for 
their  use  of  dipping — it  was,  in  all  probability 
the  way  by  which  our  blessed  Saviour,  and  for 
certain  was  the  most  usual  and  ordinary  way 
by  which  the  ancient  christians  did  receive 
their  baptism.  'Tis  a  great  want  of  prudence, 
as  well  as  of  honesty,  to  refuse  to  grant  to  an 
adversary  what  is  certainly  true,  and  may  be 
proved  so.  It  creates  a  jealousy  of  all  the  rest 
that  one  says.  'Tis  plain  that  the  ordinary  and 
general  practice  of  St.  John,  the  Apostles  and 
primitive  church,  was  to  baptize  by  putting  the 
person  into  the  water,  cr  causing  him  to  go  in- 
to the  water.  We  should  not  know  by  these 
accounts  (John  3.  23.  Mark  1.  5.  Acts  8.  38.) 
whether  the  whole  body  of  the  baptized  was 
put  under  water,  head  and  all,  were  it  not  for 
two  latter  proofs,  which  seem  to  me  to  put  it 
out  of  question.  One,  St.  Paul  does  twice,  in 
an  allusive  way  of  speaking,  calls  a  burial  : 
which  allusion  is  not  so  proper,  if  we  conceive 
them  to  have  gone  into  the  water  only  up  to  their 
arm-pits,  5kc.  as  it  is  if  the  whole  body  was  im- 
mersed. The  other,  the  custom  of  the  near 
succeeding  times  :  As  for  sprinkling,  I  say,  as 
Mr.  Blake,  at  its  first  coming  up  in  England, 
ct  them defend it  who  use  it.  They  (who  are 
inclined  to  Presbyterianism)  are  hardly  pre- 
vailed on  to  leave  off  that  scandalous  custom  of 
having  their  children,  though  never  so  well, 
baptized  out  of  a  bason,  or  poringer,  in  a  bed 
chamber  ;  hardlv  persuaded  to  bring  them  to 
church  :  niuch  farther  from  having  them  dip- 
o2 


162 

•  - 

ped  though  never  so  able  to  bear  it."     Hist,  of 
inf.  Bap  :   Part  2.  Chap.  2.  p.  462. 

Now  as  it  appears  by  the  concessions,  declar- 
ations, and  reasonings  of  so  many  learned  Pse- 
dobaptists  themselves,  that  the  natural  and 
proper  idea  of  the  term  baptism,  the  design  of 
the  institution,  and  the  examples  of  the  apos- 
tles, are  all  in  favor  of  immersion,  and  all  agree 
with  our  practice  ;  we  do  not,  we  cannot  want 
any  more  to  justify  our  conduct,  either  before 
God  or  man.  This  must  be  the  case,  except 
the  united  testimony  of  such  a  cloud  of  wit- 
nesses, and  the  reasons  of  it,  can  be  confronted 
with  superior  testimony. 

V.  Concerning  the  present  practice  of  the 
Greek  and  Oriental  churches,  in  regard  to  the 
mode  of  Administration. 

1.  Deylingius  :   "  The  Greeks  retain  the  ritev 
of  immersion  to  this  day  :  as  Jeremiah  the  Pa- 
triarch of  Constantinople  declares."  De.  Prud. 
Pastoral.  Part.  3.  C  iii.  $.26. 

2d.  Budclcus  :  "  That  the  Greeks  defend  im- 
mersion is  manifest :  and  has  been  frequently 
observed  by  learned  men  :  which  Ludalphus 
informs  us  is  the  practice  of  Ethiopians." — 
Theolog.  Dogmat.  L.  v.  C.  $.5. 

3.  Dr.  Wall  :  "  All  christians  in  Asia,  all 
in  Africa,  and  about  one  third  part  of  Europe, 
are  of  the  last  sort  (/.  e.  practise  immersion) 
in  which  a  third  part  of  Europe  are  compre- 
hended the  christians  of  Graccia,  Trocia,  Ser- 
via,  Bulgaria,  Bascia,  Walachia,  Moldavia, 
Russia,  Nigra,  and  so  on  :  and  even  the  Mus- 
covites, who,  if  coldness  of  the  country  will  ex- 


194 

cuse,  might  plead  for  a  dispensation  with  the  - 
most  reason  of  any."     Hist,  of  Inf.   Bap.  Part 
2.  Chap.  9.  p-  477. 

VI.  Concerning  the  Design  of  Baptism,  as 
more  fully  expressed  by  immersion,  than  by- 
pouring  or  sprinkling. 

1.  Witsius  :  "  It  must  not  be  dissembled, 
that  there  is  in  immersion  a  greater  fruitful- 
ness  of  signification,  and  a  more  perfect  corres- 
pondence between  the  thing  signified  :  as  we 
shall  shew,  when  we  come  to  that  part  of  our 
subject."      CEcon.  Feed.  L.  v.  Ch.  16.  p.  13. 

2.  Alstcdins  :  "  The  rite  of  immersion, 
which  is  intimated  by  the  very  word  baptism, 
certainly  bears  a  greater  analogy  to  the  thing 
signified."     Lexicon  Theol.  Cap.  12.  p.  225. 

3.  Dr.  Clarke  :  "  In  the  primitive  times, 
the  manner  of  baptizing  was  by  immersion,  or 
dipping  the  whole  body  into  the  water.  And 
this  manner  of  doing  it  was  a  very  significant 
emblem  of  the  dying  and  rising  again  referred 
to  by  St.  Paul."  Rom.  6.  4.  Expos,  of  Church 
Cat.  p.  294. 

4.  Dr.  Cave  :  "  The  party  to  be  baptized 
was  wholly  immerged,  or  put  under  water  : — 
whereby  they  did  more  notably  and  significant- 
ly express  the  three  great  ends  and  effects  of 
baptism."  Primi.  Christ.  Part  1.  Chap.  10, 
p.  203. 

VII.  Concerning  the  Reasons,  Rise,  and 
Prevalence  of  Pouring  or  Sprinkling,  instead 
of  immersion. 

1.  Salmasins :  "  The  Clinics  only,  because 
they  were  confined  to  their  beds,  were  baptized 


1G4 

in  a  manner  of  which  they  were  capable,  not  In 
the  entire  laver,  as  those  who  plunge  the  head 
under  water,  but  the  whole  body  hud  water 
nourtd  upon  it.  AoCypiian  4.  Ep.  vii.  Thus 
Novctus,  when  sick,  received  baptism  ;  being 
pericliuthus,  besprinkled,  l.ot  l»ap:isthefc>, 
baptised. 

2.  Grotius  :  "  The  custom  of  pouring  or 
sprinkling  seems  to  have  prevailed  in  favor 
of  those  that  were  dangerously  ill,  and  were  de- 
sirous of  giving  up  themselves  to  Christ  : 
whom  others  call  Clinics-  See  tie  epistle  of 
Cyprian  to  Magnus."  Apud  Poli  Synopsin; 
ad  Matt.  3   6." 

3-  Bp.  Burnet  :  "  The  danger  of  dipping 
in  cold  climates,  may  be  a  good  reason  for 
changing  the  form  of  baptism  to  sprinkling." 
Kxpo.  of  39-  Ait.  p.  456- 

4-  Dr.  Wall :  "  In  case  of  sickness,  weak- 
ness, haste,  want  of  a  quantity  of  water,  or  such 
like  extraordinary  occasions,  baptism  by  affu- 
sion of  water  on  the  face,  was  by  the  ancients 
counted  sufficient  baptism.  1  shall  out  of 
many  proofs  of  it,  produce  two  or  three  of  the 
most  ancient.  Anno  Dom.  two  hundred  and 
fifty-one,  Novatian,  was  by  one  part  of  the  cler- 
gy and  people  of  Rome,  chosen  Bishop  of  that 
Church  in  a  schismatical  way,  and  in  opposi- 
tion to  Corne/ius,  does,  in  a  letter  to  Fabius, 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  vindicate  his  right :  and 
shows  that  A ovatian  came  not  canonical!}-  to 
his  orders  of  priesthood,  much  less  was  he  ca- 
pable of  being  chosen  Bishop  ;  for  that  all  the 
clergy,  and  a  great  many  of  the  laity,   were  iu 


165 

gainst  his  being  ordained  presbyter,  because  it 
■was  not  lawful  (they  said)  for  any  one  that  had 
been  baptized  in  his  bed  in  time  of  sickness 
(ton  en  kline  dia  noson  perichuthenta)  as  he 
had  been,  to  be  admitted  to  any  office  of  the 
clergy.. -France  seems  to  have  been  the  first 
country  in  the  world,  where  baptism  by  affu- 
sion, was  used  ordinarily  to  persons  in  health, 
and  in  the  public  way  of  administrating  it. 

There  had  been  some  synods  in  some  dio- 
ceses, of  France,  that  had  spoken  of  affusion, 
without  mentioning  immersion  at  all,  that  being 
the  common  practice  ;  but  for  an  office  or  li- 
turgy of  any  church,  this  is  I  believe  the  first 
in  the  world  that  prescribes  aspersion  absolute- 
ly ;  and  for  sprinkling,  properly  called,  it  seems 
it  was,  at  sixteen  hundred  and  forty-five,  just 
then  beginning,  and  used  by  very  few.  It 
must  have  begun  in  the  disorderly  times  of 
forty-one.--But  then  came  the  Directory  and 
says—Baptism  is  to  be  administered,  not  in  pri- 
vate places  or  privately  ;  but  in  the  place  of 
public  worship,  and  in  the  face  of  the  congrega- 
tion, and  so  on.  And  not  in  the  places  where 
fonts,  in  the  time  of  popery,  were  unfitly  and 
superstitiously  placed-  So  they  reformed  the 
font  into  a  basin.  This  learned  assembly 
could  not  remember,  that  fonts  to  baptize  in 
had  been  always  used  by  the  primitive  chris- 
tians, long  before  the  beginning  of  Popery,  and 
ever  since  the  churches  were  built :  but  that 
sprinkling,  for  the  common  use  of  baptizing 
was  really  introduced  (in  France  first,  and  then 
in  other  Popish  countries)  in  times  of  Popery. 


1GG 

And  that  according,  all  those  countries  in 
which  the  usurped  power  of  the  Pope  is,  or  has 
formerly  been  owned,  have  left  off  dipping  of 
children  in  the  font  :  but  that  all  other  coun- 
tries in  the  world,  which  had  never  regarded 
his  authority,  do  still  use  it  ;  and  that  basins, 
except  in  cases  of  necessity,  were  never  used 
by  Papists,  or  any  other  christian,  Till  Bv 
themselves*  What  has  been  said  of  this 
custom  of  pouring  or  sprinkling  water  in  the  or- 
dinary use  of  baptism,  is  to  be  understood  on- 
ly in  reference  to  the  western  parts  of  Europe  : 
for  it  is  used  ordinarily  no  where  else-"  I  list- 
of  Bap.  Inf.  Part  2-  Chap.  ix.  p.  463,  467,  470> 
471,  472,477. 
Reflections* 
"  By  the  quotations  here  produced  from  cm* 
inent  Paedobaptists,  we  are  taught  that  the 
most  ancient  instance  on  ecclesiastical  record* 
which  is  yet  adduced,  of  pouring  or  sprinkling 
i  s  that  of  Nov ati an,  in  the  year  4 wo  hundred 
and  fifty- one.  That  the  reason  of  it,  both  then 
and  afterwards,  was  not  any  real,  nor  even  pre- 
tended command  or  example  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament ;  but  a  supposed  necessity,  arising  from 
bodily  disease- -it  was  considered  as  an  imper- 
fect administration  of  the  ordinance,  so  imper- 
fect as  rendered  the  subject  of  it  ineligible  to 
the  ministerial  office,  and  was  denominated 
sprinkling,  not  baptism.  That  sprinkling, 
strictly  so  called,  did  not  commence  in  Eng- 
land, till  the  year  sixteen  hundred  forty-five, 
and  was  then  used  by  very  few.  That  the  As- 
sembly of  Divines  at  Westminster,  converted 


167 

the  font  into  a  basin,  and  that  basins  unless 
in  cases  of  necessity,  had  never  been  used  by 
papists,  or  any  other  christians  whatever,  till 
03  the  members  of  that  Assembly 

"  According  to  this  representation,  the  prac- 
tice of  pouring  and  spi  inkling,  makes  but  a 
poor  figure  in  the  eyes  of  a  consistent  Protes- 
tant :  for  if  this  be  a  just  account,  it  had  no  ex- 
istence till  many  corruptions  had  taken  deep 
root  in  the  church  ;  it  originated  in  dangerous 
error  ;  was  fostered  by  the  mcther  of  abomi- 
nations ;  and  under  the  powerful  influence  of 
her  authority  and  her  example,  it  became  the 
general  custom  of  all  those  parts  of  the  world 
to  which  her  tyranny  ever  extended--<W  no 
ivhere  else.  It  seems  to  have  been  under  the 
combined  opperation  of  different  errors  that  the 
practice  took  its  rise,  &c  Sec." 

\TII-  Concerning  the  want  of  both  Express 
Precept,  and  Plain  Example,  for  Pcedobap- 
tism  in  the  New  Testament- 

1-  Bp-  Burnet :  "  There  is  no  express  pre- 
cept, or  rule,  given  in  the  New  Testament  for 
baptism  of  infants-"  Expos,  of  39  Articles- - 
Art-  27- 

2.  Dr.  Wall :  "  Among  all  the  persons  that 
are  recorded  as  baptized  by  the  apostles,  there 
is  no  express  mention  of  any  infant— There  is 
no  express  mention  indeed  of  ;my  children  bap- 
tised by  him,"  i  e  John  the  Baptist---Hist.  of 
ii.ft  Bap*  Intro-  p   1,  55- 

3  Luther  :  '  It  cannot  be  proved  by  the 
sacred  scripture,  that  infant  baptism  was  in- 
stituted by  ^Christ,  or  begun  by  the  fiist  chris- 


168 

tians  after  the  Apostles.". -In  A.  B's  Vanity  of 
Inf.  Bap.  Part  2-  p.  8. 

A*  Limborch  :  "  There  is  no  express  com- 
mand for  it  in  scripture  :  nay,  all  those  passa- 
ges wherein  baptism  is  commanded,  do  imme- 
diately relate  to  adult  persons,  since  they  are 
ordered  to  be  instructed,  and  faith  is  prerequi- 
site as  a  necessary  qualification,  which  are  pe- 
culiar to  adults  alone.  There  is  no-  instance 
that  can  be  produced,  from  whence  it  may  in- 
disputably be  inferred,  that  any  child  was 
baptized  by  the  apostles.  The  necessity  of 
Paedobaptism  was  never  asserted  by  any  coun- 
cil before  that  of  Carthage, held  in  the  year  four 
hundred  and  eighteen  :"  Compt.  Svs.  Div. 
B.  V.  Ch.  22.  Sec.  2. 

Reflections. 

**  Such  concessions  are  our  opponents  ob- 
liged to  make,  in  reference  to  this  affair  !  With 
propriety  therefore,  I  may  here  demand  and 
remonstrate,  in  the  remarkable  words  of  Mr. 
Baxter  :  *  What  man  dare  go  in  a  way  which 
hath  neither  precept  nor  example  to  warrant 
it,  from  a  way  that  hath  a  full  current  of  both  ? 
Who  knows  what  will  please  God  but  him- 
self? And  hath  he  not  told  us  what  heexpect- 
eth  from  us?  Can  that  be  obedience,  which 
hath  no  command  for  it  ?  Is  not  this  to  supc- 
rerogate,  and  to  be  righteous  overmuch  ?  Is 
it  not  also  to  accuse  God's  ordinances  of  in- 
sufficiency, as  well  as  his  word,  as  if  they  were 
not  sufficient  either  to  please  him,  or  help  our 
own  graces?  O  the  pride  of  man's  heart,  that 
instead  of  being  a  law-obeyer,  will  be  a  Uw~ 


169 

maker ;  and  instead  of  being  true  worshippers, 
they  will  be  worship  makers ;  for  my  part,  I 
will  not  fear  that  God  will  be  angry  with  me 
for  doing  no  more  than  he  hath  commanded 
me,  and  for  sticking  close  to  the  rule  of  his 
word  in  matter  of  worship  ;  but  I  should  trem- 
ble to  add  or  diminish  !* 

"  We  are  frequently  charged  with  being  ex- 
tremely fond  of  getting  people  into  the  water  : 
but  whether  it  be  really  so,  I  leave  the  impar- 
tial to  judge.  We  may  however  say  this  for 
ourselves,  that  we  never  immerse  a  person  in 
the  sublimest  of  all  names,  without  his  con- 
sent ;  no  nor  yet  without  his  explicit  request : 
whereas  those  who  lodge  the  complaint  against 
ns  are  well  aware,  that  it  would  in  general  be 
very  absurd  for  them  to  ask  the  consent  of  those 
whom  they  sprinkle  in  the  same  glorious  name; 
they  consider  the  consent  of  a  parent,  or  of  a 
proxy,  as  quite  sufficient,  though  the  subject 
of  the  ordinance  be  ever  so  reluctant." 

IX.  Concerning  the  want  of  evidence  in  fa- 
vor of  Paedobaptism, before  the  latter  end  of  the 
second,  or  the  beginning  of  the  third  centurj-. 

1.  Salmasius  and  Suicerus  :  "  In  the  two 
first  centuries  no  one  was  baptized,  except  be- 
ing instructed  in  the  faith,  and  acquainted  with 
the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he  was  able  to  profess 
himself  a  believer  ;  because  of  these  words, 
He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized.  First  then  he 
was  to  believe.  Thence  the  order  of  Cate- 
chumens, in  the  church.  Then  also  it  was  the 
constant  custom  to  give  the  Lord's  supper  to 

•  PUu*  Scrip.  Proof,  p.  24,  303. 
P 


170 

those  Catechumens,  immediately  after  their 
baptism."  Epist.  ad  Justum  Pacium.  Suiceri 
Thesa.  p.  1 136. 

2.  Curcellaeus  :  "  The  baptism  of  infants, 
in  the  first  two  centuries  after  Christ,  was  alto- 
gether unknown  ;  but  in  the  third  and  fourth 
was  allowed  by  some  few-  In  the  fifth  and 
following  ages  it  was  generally  received---the 
custom  of  baptizing  infants  did  not  begin  be- 
fore the  third  age  alter  Christ  was  born.  In 
the  former  ages  no  trace  of  it  appears— -and  it 
was  introduced  without  the  command  of 
Christ." 

3.  Episcopius,  denies  that  any  tradition  can 
be  produced  for  Pzedobaptism,  till  a  little  be- 
fore the  Milevitan  Council,  A.  D.  418,  and 
maintains  that  it  was  not  practised  in  Asia  till 
near  the  time  of  that  Council.  Insti.  L.  iv.  14. 
Mr.  Brandt  speaks  to  the  same  effect.  Hist. 
Ref.  Vol.  1.  p.  9. 

4.  Venema  :  "  Tertullian  has  no  where  men- 
tioned Pzedobaptism  among  the  tradition  of 
the  church,  nor  even  among  the  customs  of  the 
church  that  were  publicly  received  and  usually 
observed  :  nay,  he  plainly  intimates  that  in  his 
time  it  was  a  doubtful  affair.  For  in  his  book 
De  Baptismo,  Cap.  18,  he  dissuades  from 
baptizing  infants,  and  proves  by  certain  rea- 
sons that  the  delay  of  it  to  a  more  mature  age 
is  to  be  preferred  ;  which  he  certainlv  would 
not  have  done,  if  it  had  been  a  tradition  and  a 
public  custom  of  the  church,  seeing  he  was 
very  tenacious  of  traditions,  nor  had  it  been  a 
tradition,  would  he  have  failed  to  mention  it. 


171 

It  is  manifest  therefore,  that  nothing  was  then 
determined  concerning  the  time  of  baptism 
nay,  he  judged  it  safer  that  unmarried  persons 
should  defer  their  baptism — Nothing  can  be 
affirmed  with  certainty  concerning  the  custom 
of  the  church  before  Tertiillian  ;  seeing  there 
is  not  any  where  in  more  ancient  writers,  that  I 
know  of,  undoubted  mention  of  infant  baptism. 

Justin  Martyr,  in  his  second  Apology,  when 
describing  baptism,  mentions  only  that  of  ad- 
ults " — Hist.  Eccles.  Tom.  iii.  Secul.  ii.  $.108, 
109. 

5.  Regaltius  :  "  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, we  read,  that  both  men  and  women  were 
baptized,  when  they  believed  the  gospel  prea- 
ched by  Philip,  without  any  mention  being 
made  of  infants.  From  the  apostolic  age,  there- 
fore, to  the  time  of  Tertiillian,  the  matter  is 
doubtful.  Some  there  were,  from  that  saying 
of  our  Lord,  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 
me :  (to  whom,  nevertheless,  our  Lord  did  not 
■command  water  to  be  administered)  who  took 
occasion  to  baptize  new  born  infants.  And 
as  if  they  had  been  transacting  some  secular  af- 
fair with  God,  they  offered  sponsors  cr  sure- 
ties to  Christ,  who  engaged  that  they  should 
not  depart  from  the  christian  faith  when  ad- 
ults ;  which  practice  displeased  Tertu'Iian."  — 
Ste.met's  Answer  to  Mr.  Russen,  p*  74,  75. 

X.  Concerning  the  high  opinion  of  the  Fa- 
thers, in  relation  to  the  utility  of  Baptism,  and 
the  grounds  on  whieh  they  proceeded  in  ad- 
n.  metering  that  ordinance  to  infants,  when 
Fas Jobaptism  become  a  prevailing  practice. 


172 

1.  Vitringa  :  "  The  ancient  Christian 
Church,  from  the  highest  antiquity,  after  the 
apostolic  times,  appears  generally  to  have' 
thought  that  baptism  is  absolutely  necessary  for 
all  that  would  be  saved  by  the  grace  of  Jesus 
Christ.  It  was  therefore  customary  in  the  an- 
cient church,  if  infants  were  greatly  afflicted 
and  in  danger  of  death  ;  or  if  parents  were  af- 
fected with  a  singular  concern  about  the  salva- 
tion of  their  children  ;  to  present  their  infants, 
or  children  in  their  minority,  to  the  Bishop  to 
be  baptized.  But  if  these  reasons  did  not  urge 
them,  they  thought  it  better,  and  more  for  the 
interest  of  minors,  that  their  baptism  should  be 
dcferedtill  they  arrived  at  a  more  advanced 
age  :  which  custom  was  not  yet  abolished  in 
the  time  of  Austin,  though  he  vehemently  urg- 
ed the  necessity  of  baptism,  while,  with  all  his 
might,  he  defended  the  doctrines  of  grace  a- 
gainst  Pelagius."  Observat.  Sac.  Tom.  I.  L. 
II.  C.  6.  \  9. 

2.  Salmasius  :  "  An  opinion  prevailed,  that 
no  one  could  be  saved  without  being  baptized ; 
and  for  that  reason  the  custom  arose  of  bapti- 
zing infants." — Ep.  ad  Justum  Pacium.  &c. 
Hist.  B:ip. 

3.  Episcopius  :  M  Psedobaptism  was  not 
accounted  a  necessary  rite,  till  it  was  determin- 
ed.sotobein  the  Milevitan  Council,  held  in 
the  year  four  hundred  and  eighteen. " — Insti- 
tut.  Theol.  L- IV.  C.  14. 

4.  Hospinianus  :  "  Austin — when  writing 
against  the  Pelagians,  too  inconsiderately,  con- 
signs over  the  infair:s  of  christians  to  dumna- 


173 

n,  that  died  without  baptism.  There  is  no- 
ling  that  he  more  zealously  urges,  nor  any 
thing  on  which  he  more  firmly  depends,  than 
those  words  of  Christ;  Except  a  man  be  born 
of  water  and  of  the  spirit  he  cannot  enter  into 
thekinoxlom  of  God." — Hist.  Sacram.  L.  II. 
C.  11.  "p.  52. 

5.  Dr  Owen  :   "  Most  of  the  ancients  con- 
cluded that  it  (baptism)  was  no  less  necessary 
:ito  salvation,  than  faith -or  repentance  itself.". 
On  Justification,   Chap  ii-  p.  173- 
Reflections. 

"  Though  it  be  manifest  from  the  conces- 
sions and  assertions  of  learned  Pasdobaptists, 
in  the  preceeriin^  clrapterj  that  there  is  no  evi- 
dence of  infant  baptism  before  the  time  of  Ter- 
tullian,  by  whom  it  was  opposed  :  yet  from 
the  quotations,  it  plainly  appears  that  both;  he 
and  others  before  him,  spake  of  baptistri "m  such 
a  manner,  as  had  a  natural  tendency  to  intro- 
duce and  promote  Paedobaptism. 

It  is  worthy  of  observation,  that  while  Cyp- 
rian stands  forth  as  the  first  patron  of  infant 
sprinkling,  he  appears  also  as  giving  the  sanc- 
tion of  his.au thority  in  favor  of  holy  xuater  :  as- 
serting the  Necessity  of  having  the  baptismal 
element  consecrated  by  a  priest,  m  order  to 
render  it  the  more  effectual  for  the  washing  a- 
way  of  sin.*  Austin  and  others,  we  find,  in 
following  times,  proceed  a  step  further  than 
Cyprian-,  and  not  contented  with  asserting  at. 
an  extravagant  rate  the  utility  of  baptism,  bold- 
ly maintains  its  absolute  necessity  :    consigti- 

*  Sec  Yenema,  Eccl.  Ifist.  Tnm.  ITISec  3.  p.  6L 
J*  2 


174 

ing  over  to  eternal  ruin,  all  such  infants  as  died 
without  it — .Now,  as  both  Cyprian  And  Austin 
were  African  Bishops,  there  is  reason  to  con- 
elude  with  Grotius,  4  That  anciently  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  was  much  more  common  in 
Africa  than  in  Asia,  or  elsewhere  :  and  with 
a  greater  opinion  of  its  necessity.'  f  So  fond 
of  baptism  were  the  superstitious  Africans,  that, 
as  Deylingms  informs  us  they  frequently  bap- 
tized the  dead.  % I  cannot  help 

thinking,  that  either  the  inspired  writers  knew 
nothing  at  all  of  Paedobaptism,  or  hud  a  very 
mean  opinion  of  it  :  for  it  seems  unaccountably 
:it  range,  that  they  should  all  have  approved  the 
practice,  and  yet  all  agree,  on  such  a  variety  of 
.occasions,  in  saying  nothing  about  it-  But  sup- 
posing k  was  practised  by  them,  and  that  they 
considered  it  as  much  more  advantageous  than 
♦helteptism  of  believers,  their  conduct  is  yet 
moiv  amazingly  strange :  because  they  ex- 
pressly apply  the  latter  to  practical  purposes, 
though  emitcly  silent  about  the  former.  An 
example  this,  which  our  opponents  are  not  in- 
clined to  imitate.  Peruse  the  writings  of  mod- 
ern Psedobr.ptists,  and  you  plainly  perceive  the 
advantc-$es  resulting  from  baptism,  almost  en- 
tirely confined  to  that  of  infants.  Consult  the 
Apostolic  records,  and  you  find  them  all  con- 
nected wivh  the  baptism  of  adults.  We  may 
»iow  venture  to  appeal  to  the  reader,  whether 
he  would  not  suspect  my  unknown  author  of 
bei»  g  a  baptist,  weie  he  to  find  him  treating  on 

-  Apud.  Poli.  Synops.  ad  .Matt.  xix.  14. 
*   De  Prud  P^st.  Pops.  III.    CU.3.  $16- 


175 

all  ihe  various  topics  lately  enumerated,  and 
yet  perceive  that  he  is  quite  silent  about  infant 
baptism. 

XI  Concerning  Apostolic  Tradition,  and 
the  impracticability  of  pointing  out  the  time 
when  Pa;dobaptism  commenced. 

1.  J.  A.  Turrettinus  :  "  Tradition  is  a  con- 
venient word,  to  excuse  and  retain  those  things 
that  were  brought  into  religion  without  the  au- 
thority of  scripture,  by  the  ignorance  of  the 
times  and  the  tyranny  of  men." 

2.  Mr-  Robinson  :  "  If,  whatever  we  find 
to  have  been  a  general  and  prevailing  custom  a 
few  hundred  years  after  the  Apostles,  must  ne- 
cessarily be  allowed  to  have  been  the  practice 
of  their  times  too;  I  am  afraid  we  must  not 
only  have  forms  of  prayer,  but  also  prayers  for 
the  dead,  and  invocations  of  saints  and  angels* 
and  so  on-"     Review  of  Liturgies,  p.  111. 

3.  Anonymous:  "  The  church  of  Ron.v, 
will  not  acknowledge  their  points  of  doctrine 
to  be  erroneous,  unless  we  can  assign  the  time, 
and  point  out  the  persons  who  first  broached 
them.  If  a  man  be  sick  of  a  consumption,  will 
he  refuse  help  of  the  physician,  except  he  can 
resolve  him  whether  his  lungs,  or  his  liver 
w^re  first  infected,  and  show  the  time  when, 
and  the  occasion  how  his  body  grew  first  dis- 
tempered." Popery  confuted  by  Papists,  p. 
26,  27, 

4.  Mr.  Henry  :  "  Irenaeus,  one  of  the  first 
fathers,  with  this  passage,  (John  viii.  57)  sup- 
ports tradition,  which,  he  sakh  he  1  ad  from 
some  that  had  converged  with  St.  John,  that 


17fi 

our  Snviour  lived  to  be  fifty  years  old,  which 
he  contends  for.  See  what  little  credit  is  to  be 
^iven  to  tradition."  Exposition  on  Jolmviii. 57. 

5.  Mr.  Claude:  "  As  to  the  scripture,  in- 
stead of  making  that  the  only  rule  of  faith, 
they  (the  Papists)  had  joined  tradition  with  it: 
that  is  to  say,  the  most  uncertain  thing  in  the 
world,  the  most  subject  to  impostures,  and  the 
most  mixed  with  human  inventions  and  weak- 
nesses. Tradition  is  so  far  from  being  able  to 
serve  for  a  rule,  that  it  ought  itself  to  be  cor- 
rected and  regulated  according  to  that  maxim 
of  Jesus  Christ :  In  the  beginning  it  was  not  so. 
There  is  therefore,  nothing  more  improper  to 
be  the  rule  of  faith  than  that  pretended  tradi- 
tion, which  is  not  established  upon  any  c: 
foundation,  winch  serves  for  a  pretence  to  he- 
retics, which  is  embraced  pro  and  con,  which 
changes  according  as  times  and  places  do,  and 
by  the  favor  of  which  they  may  defend  the 
greatest  absurdities,  by  merely  saying,  fl&t 
they  are  the  traditions  of  the  apostles  trans- 
mitted from  their  own  mouths  to  their  suc- 
cessors." Defence  of  Reformation,  Part  1. 
chap.  3.  p.  34.  Part  2.  chap.  8.  254,  258. 

Reflections. 

"  The  Baptists  are  here  informed  by  their 
learned  opponents,  that  the  pretence  of  tradi- 
tion is  a  happy  expedient,  in  favor  of  those 
who  wish  to  retain  unscriptural  rites  in  the 
worship  of  God.  That  some  of  the  first  Fa- 
thers who  pleaded  apostolic  tradition,  stand 
convicted  of  error.  That  were  ecclesiastical 
custom,  but  a  few  centuries  after  the  christian 


177 

sera  commenced,  to  be  considered  as  an  apos- 
tolical practice  barely  on  a  traditional  ground  ; 
we  must  adopt  a  variety  of  ceremonies  which 
all  Protestants  have  agreed  to  reject.  That 
the  conduct  of  the  Roman  Catholics  in  refusing 
to  acknowledge  their  errors,  except  the  time 
when,  and  the  persons  by  whom  they  were  in- 
troduced be  pointed  out,  is  grossly  absurd. 
Such  are  the  sentiments  of  these  respectable 
authors  concerning    the  matter    before    us." 

. The  following  remarkable  words 

of  the  famous  Wicklijf,  we  would  suppose 
should  be  cordially  adopted  by  every  consis- 
tent Protestant :  "  All  human  traditions,  which 
are  not  taught  in  the  gospel,  are  superfluous 
and  wicked."  Superfluous,  because  the  bible 
is  a  complete  rule  of  faith  and  practice  :  wickedt 
because  tradition  frequently  usurps  the  place 
of  divine  law,  and  vacates   the    commands  of 

God Till   therefore, 

it  be  fairly  proved  that  infant  baptism  is  war- 
ranted, either  b}r  precept  or  by  example  in  the 
New  Testament,  we  need  not  ber  much  con- 
cerned about  the  precise  time  when  it  was 
introduced  ;  but  may  safely  shelter  our  cause 
under  the  wings  of  that  divine  oracle — From 

THE  BEGINNING   IT  WAS   NOT  SO.       If,    llOW- 

ever,  our  opponents  will  pledge  themselves  to 
inform  us  with  precision,  when  the  Jewish 
proselyte  baptism  commenced,  or  when  infant 
communion  first  came  into  the  church  ;  we 
will  engage  in  our  turn  to  inform  them  with 
equal  punctuality,  when  infant  baptism  was 
first  practised.     The  conduct  of  our  opposers 


178 

in  arguing  for  Paedobaptism  from  tradition, 
reminds  me  of  an  old  saying,  with  which  I  will 
conclude  this  chapter  :  Cum  leonina  non  suf- 
ficeret,  pellem  vulpinamesse  assuendam." 

XII.  Concerning  the  period  at  which  infant 
baptism  and  infant  communion  were  intro- 
duced, and  the  similarity  of  argument  by  which 
they  are  both  supported. 

1.  Bp.  Burnet  :  "  We  see  a  practice  that 
\vas  very  ancient,  and  that  continued  very  long, 
which  arose  out  of  the  exposition  of  those 
words,  John  vi.  53  ;  by  which  children  were 
made  partakers  of  the  eucharist."  Four  Dis- 
courses to  the  Clergy,  p.  206,  207. 

2.  Salmasius  :  "  Because  the  eucharist  was 
given  to  adult  Catechumens  when  they  were 
washed  with  holy  baptism  without  any  space 
of  time  intervening  :  this  also  was  done  to  in- 
fants, after  Psedobaptism  was  introduced."— 
Apud  Dalcnem.  Dissertat.  de  Paedobaptismo. 

3.  Mosbeim  :  "  It  appears  by  many  and  un- 
doubted testimonies,  that  this  holy  rite  (the 
Lord's  Supper)  was  looked  upon  as  essential 
to  salvation  ;  and  when  this  is  duly  consider- 
ed we  shall  be  less  disposed  to  censure,  as  er- 
roneous, the  opinion  of  those  who  have  affirm- 
ed that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  administered  to 
infants  durir  g  this  (second}  century."  Eccles. 
Hist.  Vol.  1,  p.  171. 

4.  Dr.  John  Edwards  :  "  Infant  commu- 
nicating— was  a  catholic,  doctrine — Herein  all 
the  fathers  agreed  ;  who,  misunderstanding, 
and  misapplying  Christ's  words,  in  John  vi.  53. 
.ield  that  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord'*)  supper 


179 

was  to  be  administered  to  infants  and  children, 
and  that  it  was  necessary  for  them  to  salva- 
tion ;  accordingly  they  made  them  partakers 
of  that  ordinance." — Discourse  concerning 
truth  and  error,  p.  232. 

5.  Venema  :  "  No  sign  of  admitting  infants 
to  the  holy  supper  appears  before  the  time  of 
Cyprian,  in  the  third  century  ;  who  is  the  first, 
that  mentions  it,  as  will  appear  in  its  pn >per 
place.  From  which,  what  has  been  said  about 
Paedobaptism,  acquires  additional  force  ;  see- 
ing in  the  ancient  church,  those  Civ o  sacraments, 
in  respect  of  the  subject,  were  never  sepa- 
rated  the  ONE  FROM   THE    OTHER. Hist. 

Eccles.  Secul.  II.  p.  100. 

6.  Mr.  Williams  :  "  In  point  of  right,  how 
can  the  two  ordinances  be  separated  ?  are  not 
the  same  reasons  which  are  brought  for  infant 
baptism,  in  the  like  manner  applicable  to  infant 
communion  ?  And  will  not  the  objections  a- 
gainst  the  latter  admit  of  the  same  answer  as 
those  against  the  former  ? — Nor  do  I  see  how 
this  reasoning  can  be  evaded  by  a  consistent 
Paedobaptist,  while  we  only  attend  to  a  legal 
right  of  infants  to  that  ordinance." — Note  on 
Mr.  Morrice's  Soc.  Relig.  p.  78,  79. 

I  will  close  the  testimony  of  our  respectable 
Paedobaptist  bcethren  with  one  of  Cardinal 
Hosiusy  who  was  President  of  the  Council  of 
Trent.  "  The  Anabaptists  are  a  pernicious 
sect:  of  which  kind  the  Waldensian  Breth- 
ren seem  also  to  have  been.  Concerning 
whom  it  appears,  that  not  very  long  ago  they 
rebaptized  persons  :     though  some   of  them 


180 

lately,  as  they  testified  in  their  Apology,  have 
ceased  to  repeat  baptism.  Certain  it  is  how- 
ever that  in  many  things  they  agree  with  the 
Anabaptists  .  Nor  is  this  heresy  a  modern 
thing  :  for  it  existed  in  the  time  of  Austin." 
Ap.  Schyn.  Hist.  Mennomit.  p.  135. 
Reflections. 

We  are  here  told  by  our  opponents,  that  the 
Lord's  supper  was  anciently  given  to  infants— 
That  it  became  general — That  the  practice  of 
giving  the  holy  supper  to  infants,  originated 
in  a  misunderstanding  of  John  vi.  53---That  it 
followed  immediately  on  their  being  baptized. 
That  in  point  of  legal  right,  the  two  ordinan- 
ces cannot  be  separated-- -That  in  the  ancient 
church,  baptism  and  the  sacred  supper  were 
never  separated,  in  regard  to  their  subjects— 
That  the  Lord's  supptr  was  esteemed  neces- 
sary to  the  salvation  of  infants- --That  no  ob- 
jection can  be  made  against  it  which    will  not 

lie  with  equal  force  against  infant  baptism. 

Such  is  the  important  intelligence  communica- 
ted by  these  Paedobaptists." 

"  It  is  very  observable,  that  so  many  Paedo- 
baptists themselves  have  admitted  the  facts  on 
which  we  reason  :  Do  we  maintain,  for  in- 
stance, that  baptism  is  a  positive  institution, 
and  that  positive  rites  depend  entirely  on  the 
revealed  will  of  God,  in  regard  to  the  manner 
of  performing  them,  the  persons  to  whom  they 
belong,  and  the  signification  of  them  ?  All 
this  they  readily  grant.  Do  we  insist,  that  the 
obvious  and  native  sense  of  the  term  baptism, 
is  immersion  ?     They  expressly  allow  it.     Do 


181 

we  assert,  that  the  principal  thing  intended  by 
the  ordinance,  is  a  representation  of  our  com- 
munion with  Christ  ?  It  is  cheerfully  granted. 
Do  we  maintain  that  immersion  was  the  apos- 
tolic practice,  and  that  except  in  extraordinary 
cases,  it  was  the  general  custom  for  thirteen 
hundred  years  ?  Do  we  affirm,  that  immer- 
sion is  the  present  practice  of  the  Greek  and 
Oriental  churches,  and  that  those  churches  in- 
clude one  half  the  christian  world  ?  Their  own 
pens  bear  testimony  for  us.  Do  we  insist,  that 
plunging  is  more  expressive  of  the  great  things 
intended  by  the  ordinance,  than  pouring  or 
sprinkling  ?  They  accede  to  our  opinion.-— 
Do  we  assert,  that  the  first  instance  of  pouring 
or  sprinkling,  instead  of  immersion,  which  is 
expressly  recorded,  was  about  the  middle  of 
the  third  century,  and  then  condemned  ;  that 
the  apostate  church  of  Rome,  all  sovereign  as 
her  claims  are,  introduced  pouring  to  common 
practice  ;  and  that  Protestant  churches  receiv- 
ed it  from  her  polluted  hands  ?  These  being 
stubborn  facts,  are  all  acknowledged.  Do  we 
assert,  that  no  power  on  earth  has  authority 
to  alter  the  laws  of  Christ,  or  to  depart  from 
the  apostolic  example  in  regard  to  immersion  ? 
So  do  they,  in  effect,  when  disputing  with  Pa- 
pists concerning  the  sacred  supper.  Do  we 
contend  that  there  is  no  express  command,  nor 
plain  example  in^the  New  Testament,  relating 
to  infant  baptism  ?  It  is  granted  by  them.  Do 
we  plead,  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  Paedo- 
baptism  being  practised  before  the  conclusion 
of  the  second,  or  beginning  of  the  third  cen- 


182 

tury  ?  This  also  is  readily  granted,  even  by 
some  of  those  who  were  the  greatest  adepts  in 
christian  antiquities.  Is  it  our  opinion  that  the 
extravagant  notions  of  the  fathers,  in  the  se- 
cond and  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century, 
concerning  the  great  utility  of  baptism,  and 
their  misunderstanding  of  John  iii.  5.  laid  the 
foundation  of  Paedobaptism  ?  It  is  allowed. 
Do  we  treat  with  contempt  the  plea  of  pretend- 
ed apostolic  tradition,  unsupported  by  scrip- 
ture ?  So  do  all  Protestants,  except  Paedo- 
baptism, Episcopacy,  or  something  similar,  so. 
licits  their  patronage.  Once  more :  Do  we 
maintain,  that  infant  baptism  and  infant  com- 
munion were  introduced  about  the  same  time  ; 
that  they  are  supported  by  kindred  arguments ; 
that  they  were  equally  common  for  a  course 
of  ages  :  and  that  they  are  still  united  in  the 
practice  of  half  the  christian  world  ?  We  have 
the  happiness  to  find   that  these   facts  are  all 

confirmed  by  their  learned  pens." 

Glassius  informs  us  of  some  Jewish  Rabbics 
who  maintain,  '  That  there  are  seventy  ways  of 
expounding  divine  law  ;'  and  Dr.  Allix  tells  us 
that  Rabbi  Lipman  lays  this  down  for  a  maxim, 
*  That  the  law  was  capable  of  divers  explica- 
tions, and  all  of  them,  though  never  so  incom- 
patible and  contradictory,  were  nevertheless  the 
words  of  the  living  God. '  *  Now  as  the  sen- 
timents of  our  opposers  respecting  infant  bap- 
tism are  so  greatly  diversified  and  so  grossly 
inconsistent,  I  do  not  perceive  how  they  can 
be  reconciled,  without  admitting  these    Rab- 

•  Judg.  of  the  Jewish  Church,  p.  413. 


]S3 

binical  principles  of  interpreting  holy  writ :  nor 
even  then  without  insulting  common  sense, 
and  rendering  the  divine  word  of  no  utility. — 
Franklius,  we  learn  from  Dr.  Schyn>  publish- 
ed a  book  which  he  entitled,  The  Babel  of  the 
Anabaptists :  and  it  appears  from  what  has 
been  laid  before  the  reader,  that  he  might  have 
published  its  counter-part,  under  the  title  of 
the  Babel  of  Pasdobaptism  :  for  we  may  safe- 
ly defy  our  keenest  opposers  to  produce  a  mass* 
of  inconsistencies  from  the  writings  of  Bap- 
tists, and  relating  to  baptism,  equal  to  that 
which  appears  in  the  foregoing  pages." 

Having  proved  all  we  want,  by  the  conces- 
sions and  declarations  of  our  opponents,  quoted 
from  Bryant's  abridgement  of  Booth's  Paedo- 
baptism  examined,  we  offer  a  few  passages  ta- 
ken from  Mr.  White,  of  Philadelphia :  prin- 
ted 1808. 

"  In  the  pamphlet  we  have  noticed,  the  ail-" 
thor  tries  to  lead  his  readers  astray  by  quota- 
tions from  the  fathers,  wherein  he  asserts  that 
as  early  as  forty  years  after  the  apostles,  the 
baptizing  of  infants  is  spoken  of  in  their  wri- 
tings. The  persons  he  refers  us  to  in  proof 
of  it  are,  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Tertuliian, 
Origen  and  Cyprian.  All  that  he  has  said  here 
has  been  literally  copied  from  a  sermon  of  Mr. 
Bostwick,  of  New- York,  yet  no  credit  has 
been  given  him  for  it  :  but  it  is  disingenuous 
to  the  last  degree  in  him  to  renew  this  argu- 
ment, when  he  well  knows  that  the  late  Dr. 
Gill  proved  Mr.  Bostvvick's  assertions  errone- 
ous ;  and  as  that  gentleman  never  did  reply  to 


18* 

the  Doctor,  his  silence  is  conclusive  evidence 
of  his  defeat.  Nor  does  our  author  give  a  true 
account  of  the  time  in  which  they  lived  ;  for 
according  to  him,  Justin  Martyr  wrote  about 
forty  years  after  the  apostles  :  but  the  fact  is, 
that  he  lived  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
after  Christ.  Nor  did  Tertullian,  as  he  affirms, 
live  within  one  hundred  and  ninety  years  of 
the  apostles  ;  for  he  did  not  join  the  church  at 
Carthage,  until  the  close  of  the  second  centu- 
ry, nor  flourish  until  the  beginning  of  the  third. 
Cyprian  lived  about  the  middle  of  the  third 
century  ;  but  this  author  says  it  was  about  one 
hundred  years  after  the  apostles.  Now,  what 
dependence  is  to  be  placed  in  men's  assertions, 
when  they  can,  to  serve  their  purposes,  so 
cgregiously  falsify  history  ?" 

"  This  author's  pretended  quotation  from 
Justin  Martyr,  is,  that  l  some  aged  christians 
were  made  disciples  in,  or  from,  their  infancy;' 
and,  though  he  allows  that  infant  baptism  is  not 
mentioned,  yet  he  says,  *  if  they  were  made 
disciples  in  infancy,  they  were  doubtless  the 
subjects  of  baptism.'  The  quotation  is  not 
correct :  for  the  word  '  disciple'  is  not  in  the 
passage  ;  all  that  he -says  is,  that  they  were  '  in- 
structed' from  their  childhood  :  The  original 
quotation  is,  "  Several  persons  among  us,  men 
and  women  of  sixty  and  seventy  years  of  age, 
who,  from  their  childhood  were  instructed  in 
Christ,  remain  still  incorrupt."  These  per- 
sons were  instructed,  not  baptized,  nor  made 
disciples.  How  absurd,  therefore,  the  conclu- 
sion, that  they  were  baptized  in  their  infancy, 


185 

when  no  such  thing  is  said  !  Nor  is  the  Greek 
word  which  he  renders  '  infancy'  in  his  quo- 
tation, properly  translated  ;  for  it  ought  to  be 
rendered  'children?  and  surely  it  will  not 
be  thought  strange  that  such  should  be  instruc- 
ted ;  for  Timothy  knew  the  scriptures  from  a 
*  child,''  Besides,  '  instructing*  supposes  they 
were  not  infants ;  and  therefore  if  they  had 
been  'disciples,'  as  he  affirms,  yet  it  was  done 
at  a  time  when  they  could,  and  actually  did  re- 
ceive -  instruction.1 

Our  author  says,  "  Irenseus  mentions  the 
baptism  of  '  infants^  This  assertion  of  his  is 
altogether  false  .  The  words  are,  '  He  (that  is 
Christ)  came  to  save  all ;  all  I  say,  who  by  him 
are  bom  again  to  God,  infants  and  little  ones, 
and  children,  and  young  men,  and  old  men.' — 
He  will  have  it,  that  by  '  regeneration'  is  meant 
4  baptism0:  but  this  gross  error  of  calling  re- 
generation, baptism,  had  not  at  that  time  got 
into  use,  and  was  reserved  to  darker  ages  ;  nor 
is  it  in  his  power  to  shew  an  instance  in  any  of 
the  writings  of  Irenaeus  of  its  being  so  used,  to 
justify  this  interpretation.  This  would  make 
him  say,  that  Christ  came  to  save  all  baptized 
persons,  which  he  never  would  have  said  :  but 
it  was  true  in  the  sense  he  used  it,  that  Christ 
came  to  saveaU  that  were  '  born  again  of  God  ;' 
for  no  doubt  infants'  dying  in  infancy ,  are  re- 
generated and  taken  to  glory  :  but  not  all  in- 
fants :  for  some  grow  up  in  sin  and  live  in  it 
all  their  days." 

He  next  introduces  Tertullian,  who,  he  says, 
*'  speaks  of  baptizing  of  infants  as  a  practice  of 
<i3 


18(5 

the  church  ;"  and  he  calls  him  singular  and 
whimsical.  Tertullian  does  not  say  it  was  a 
practice  of  the  church  :  but  he  opposes  it  as  an 
innovation,  and  declares  it  to  be  wrong-,  advi- 
sing that  such  should  grow  up  first,  and  be  in- 
structed before  they  were  baptized.  His 
Words  are,  "  Let  them  come,  while  they  are 
growing  up,  let  them  come  and  learn,  and  let 
them  be  instructed  when  they  come,  and  when 
they  Understand  Christianity,  let  them  profess 
themselves  christians."  I  now  ask,  is  it  not 
too  barefaced  for  a  man  to  assert,  as  does  this 
author,  that  he  spoke  of  infant  baptism  as  a 
practice  of  the  church  ?  We  indeed  have  not 
denied  that  at  that  time  the  first  attempt  was 
made  to  introduce  infant  baptism,  under  the 
notion  that  it  was  regeneration  :  but  other  er- 
rors were  also  at  the  same  time  introduced,  as 
Tertullian  says  :  whose  words  are,  M  It  is  well 
known,  a  great  variety  of  superstitious \  ridicu- 
lous and  foolish  rites,  were  brought  into  the 
church."  Must  it  net  be  evident  to  an  unpre- 
judiced mind,  that  tins  is  evidence  against  in- 
fant baptism,  rather  than  a  defence  of  it  ?  But 
why  call  Tertullian  whimsical  ?  Or  if  he  were 
so,  why  quote  him  as  an  authority?  The  whole 
mystery  lies  in  this,  that  he  opposed  the  bap- 
tizing of  infants  ;  and  the  test  oijimwess  and 
stability  with  our  author  'must,  no  doubt,  be 
zeal  for  infant  baptism. 

Origen  is  next  mentioned,  thus  :  "  He  was 
one  of  the  most  learned  and  knowing  men  of 
the  age,  and  declares  that  infants  are,  by  the  u- 
sage  of  the  church,  baptized,  and  that  an  order 


IS7 

for  baptizing  of  infants  had  been  delivered  to 
the  church,  from  the  apostles,  who  knew  that 
the  pollution  of  sin  is  in  all."  The  reader  will 
observe,  that  Origen  wrote  in  Greeks  and  many 
of  his  own  writings  are  still  in  being :  but  this 
quotation  concerning  infant  baptism,  is  not  to 
be  found  in  any  of  them.  But  if  it  be  asked, 
whence  was  it  derived  :  the  answer  is,  that  our 
opponents  have  gotten  it  from  some  interpola- 
ted latin  translations,  which  are  not  to  be  trus- 
ted. These  were  made  by  men  that  lived  at 
the  latter  end  of  the  fourth  century,  when  the 
churches  were  overrun  with  error.  But  had 
it  been  in  reality  proved  (which  it  cannot  be) 
that  Origen  had  so  written  :  yet  his  assertion 
deserves  but  little  credit,  as  he  was  one  of  the 
most  erroneous  and  superstitious  persons  of  his 
day,  and  one  that  taught  universal  salvation  : 
and  that  cur  author  has  given  him  a  character 
he  by  no  means  deserves,  and  to  shew  how  lit- 
tle reliance  is  to  be  placed  on  what  he  says,  I 
will  subjoin  a  quotation  from  a  Paedobaptist 
(Bishop  Taylor)  concerning  him :  His  re- 
marks  are.  "  A  tradition  apostolical,  if  it  be 
not  consigned  with  a  fuller  testimony  than  that 
of  one  person  (Origen)  whom  all  ages  have  con- 
demned oj  many  errors^  will  obtain  so  little  re- 
putation among  those,  who  know  that  others 
have  upon  greater  authority  pretended  to  de- 
rive from  the  apostles  and  yet  falsely,  that  it 
will  be  a  great  argument  that  he  is  credulous 
and  weak  that  shall  be  determined  by  so  weak 
approbation  in  »  matter  of  so  great  conse- 
quence."    The  reader  will  see  from  this  quo- 


188 

tation  from  so  eminent  a  person  as  Bishop  Tay- 
lor, that  our  author's  recommendation  of  cha- 
racter is  not  to  be  trusted  ;  and  this  will  learn 
the  reader  to  be  cautious  how  he  takes  on 
trust  what  this  writer  says. 

"  Cyprian  (says  our  author)  gives  as  full  a 
testimony  as  possible  to  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism  at  the  time  ha  lived.  At  the  council 
of  sixty-six  ministers,  held  about  one  hundred 
and  fifty  years  after  the  apostles,  (the  date  here 
is  false,  for  it  Mas  in  the  middle  of  the  third 
century)  it  was  debated,  whether  it  would  not 
be  proper  to  delay  the  baptizing  of  infants  till 
the  eighth  day,  according  to  the  law  of  circum- 
cision. The  reader  will  recollect,  we  have  ad- 
mitted that  infant  baptism,  not  infant  sprink- 
ling, was  introduced  in  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century.  Of  what  use  can  it  be  to  tell 
us  of  Cyprian,  who  lived  after  that  period,  or 
of  the  council  of  Carthage,  which  debated  the 
question  referred  to,  when  we  have  not  dispu- 
ted it  prevailed  then  ?  Take  out  the  false  date, 
our  author  has  given  it,  and  then  the  poison  is 
extracted  ;  for  instead  of  this  being  done  in 
the  second  century,  it  will  be  found  to  be  in 
the  middle  of  the  third.  But  the  name  of  the 
council  in  which  this  was  debated  is  kept  back, 
as  well  as  the  arguments  used  in  support,  as 
likewise  other  ridiculous  questions  debated. 
Why  not  tell  these  things  ?  Was  the  gentle- 
man ashamed  of  the  transaction  ?  Well  he  may 
be.  But  that  the  reader  may  see  the  extreme 
ignorance  and  superstition  of  these  '  minis- 
ters' as  he  calls  them,  I  will  give  a  little  ac- 
count of  this  business. 


.  189 

A  bishop  named  Fidus,  wrote  to  Cyprian  at 
Carthage,  to  know  whether  children  might  be 
baptized  before  they  were  eight  days  old,  (it 
seems  his  bible  could  not  determine  this  ques- 
tion^ nor  yet  Cyprian) ;  a  council  was  called, 
and  its  decision  was  this  :  "  That  God  denies 
grace  to  none;  that  God  would  be  a  respecter 
of  persons  if  he  were  to  deny  to  infants  what 
he  grants  to  adults  ;"  and  then  to  justify  this 
decision,  they  advance  the  following  reasoning: 
"  Did  not  the  prophet  Elijah  lie  upon  a  child, 
and  put  his  mouth  upon  his  mouth,  and  his 
eyes  upon  his  eyes,  and  his  hands  upon  his 
hands  ?  Now  the  spiritual  sense  of  all  this  is, 
that  infants  are  equal  to  men  ;  but  if  you  refuse 
to  baptize  them,  you  destroy  the  equality,  and 
are  partial."  Here,  reader,  is  conclusive  rea- 
soning for  you  !  Here  is  the  mighty  decision 
of  the  council  of  Carthage  i  How  profound  the 
reasoning !  Elijah  lay  upon  a  child,  therefore 
infants  are  to  be  baptized  !  Infants  are  equal  to 
men,  therefore  infants  are  to  be  baptized  I 
God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  therefore  in- 
fants are  to  be  baptized !  Wonderful  council 
of  Carthage  !  Sixty-six  Solomons  indeed  they 
were  ;  and  no  doubt,  cur  author,  had  he  then 
lived,  would  have  vied  with  any  of  them  !  But 
one  thing  is  singular  :  they  do  not  pretend  to 
any  apostolic  tradition,  do  not  quote  the  prac- 
tice of  the  church — bring  forward  no  command 
of  Christ — no  example  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment: as  for  them  they  at  that  time  never 
thought  of  arguing  from  Abraham's  covenant, 
and  were  it  seems  ignorant  of  infant  church- 


190 

membership,  and  destitute  of  arguments  which 
modern  Paedobaptists  so  amply  supply  in  die 
present  day*" 

"  But  I  have  not  done  with  this  council  yet ; 
for  it  seems  the  pious  Fidus  above  mentioned, 
had  his  conscience  troubled  about  a  matter 
equally  as  weighty  as  the  baptizing  a  child  at 
eight  days  old,  nor  could  he  rest  until  the  coun- 
cil decided  on  it ;  and  now,  reader,  if  you  pro- 
mise me  not  to  laugh  immoderately,  I  will  tell 
you  what  it  is.  Poor  dear  man  he  was  very 
delicate,  and  had  no  small  fear  of  ceremonial 
defilement,  (as  a  person  of  his  holiness  must 
need  be) ;  now  as  it  was  the  practice  to  kiss 
the  babe,  poor  Fidus  thought  this  was  an  un- 
clean piece  of  business  to  kiss  the  child  so  soon 
after  it  was  born  ;  and,  feering  the  wrath  of 
heaven  if  he  did  not  do  it,  his  holy  soul  could 
not  rest  until  the  council  had  settled  the  matter. 
This  council  that  decided  so  wonderfully  on 
infant  baptism,  very  gravely  debated  the  point, 
and  after  many  a  display  of  genius  decided 
thus  :  "  You  are  mistaken,  Fidus,  children  in 
this  case  are  not  unclean,  for  the  apostle  saith, 
*  to  the  pure  all  things  are  pure.'  JVo  man 
ought  to  be  shocked  at  hissing  what  God  conde- 
scends to  create.  Circumcision  was.  a  carnal 
rite,  this  is  spiritual  circumcision,  and  Peter 
saith  we  ought  not  to  call  anv  man  common  or 
unclean."  These  famous  bishops  were  as 
tenacious  of  the  ordinance  of  baby  kissing,  as 
of  baby  baptizing.  It  is  indeed  singular,  that 
while  these  gentlemen  refer  to  Cyprian  and 
others,  as  authorities  for  the  subjects  of  bap- 


191 

iism,  they  wholly  reject  the  mode  ;  for  it  is  well 
known  that  they  practised  immersion  only." 

"  One  remark  more  will  close  these  strict- 
ures ;  and  that  is  on  what  the  author  says, 
*  that  we  have  the  testimony  of  Doctor  YV  all 
to  this  effect  :  *  For  the  first  four  hundred 
years  there  appears  only  one  man  f  Tertul  «  J 
that  advised  the  delay  of  infant  baptism  in 
some  cases,  and  one  Gregory  that  did  perhaps 
practice  such  delay  in  the  case  of  his  children  : 
but  no  society  so  thinking,  or  so  practising, 
nor  any  one  man  saying  that  it  was  not  lawful 
to  baptize  infants.  In  the  next  seven  hundred 
years,  there  is  not  so  much  as  one  man  to  be 
found  that  either  speaks  for  or  practised  such 
delay."  Had  all  this  been  true,  what  would 
it  prove,  more  than  that  the  long  reign  of  the 
superstitions  of  popery  is  a  justification  of 
those  superstitions  ;  such  reasoning  will  justi- 
fy most  of  the  errors  uf  the  church  of  Rome. 
But  it  is  not  true;:  for  Doctor  Wall  has  allowed 
that  Tertullian  did  oppose  it,  on  its  first  intro- 
duction in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  ; 
and  the  same  man  produces  a  decision  of  the 
council  of  Carthage,  one  hundred  and  eigh- 
teen years  after  Cyprian,  when  persons  are  an- 
athematised who  deny  infant  baptism.  This 
was  in  the  year  418,  and  stands  thus  :  '  Also 
it  is  our  pleasure  that  whoever  denies  that 
new  born  infants  are  to  be  baptised,  let  him  be 
anathema.'  Would  that  council  have  given 
these  directions,  had  it  not  been  opposed  ? — 
And  the  same  Dr.  Wall  admits,  that  Peter 
Jlruys,  and  Henry ,  his  follower,  were  both  An- 


192 

tipasdobaptist  preachers,  and  says,  *  they  were 
the  first  that  c\  er  set  up  a  church,  or  society 
of  men,  holding  that  opinion  against  infant 
baptism,  and  re- baptising  such  as  had  been 
baptized  in  infancy  ;  and  that  the  Latcran coun- 
cil, under  Innocent  II.  A.  D.  1139,  did  con- 
dc  *  /Peter  Bruys,  and  Arnold  Brescia.'  From 
this  it  appears  that  Doctor  Wall  has  granted 
all  we  want :  namely,  that  the  JValdenses,  of 
which  these  men  were  pastors,  held  this  very 
doctrine  ;  and  it  is  well  known  thattbe  Wai- 
fs were  inhabitants  of  the  vallies  of  Pied- 
mont, who  firmly  and  at  the  peril  of  their  lives, 
maintained  the  truth  through  all  the  dark  ages 
of  popery.  Their  confessions  prove  they  op- 
posed infant  baptism.  Extracts  from  their 
confessions  may  be  seen,  with  a  general  ac- 
count of  them,  in  Doctor  Gill's  answer  to  si 
pamphlet  printed  in  Boston  in  1 74  6. 

It  has  been  asked  by  Paedobaptists,  why 
make  such  ado  about  baptism,  it  is,  s«y  they 
but  a  nonessential  at  last,  and  even  if  we  are 
wrong,  it  is  not  a  matter  of  such  importance, 
nor  shall  we  be  asked  in  the  day  of  judgment 
whether  we  have  been  Baptists  or  Paedobap- 
tists. In  answer  to  this  1  shall  observe,  that 
it  is  hard  for  our  opponents  to  know  what 
questions  will  be  asked  them  on  that  head 
hereafter  :  but  Christ  says,  '  He  that  breaketh 
one  of  the  least  of  these  commandments,  and 
teachcth  men  so,  shall  be  called  the  least  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  :  Matt.  vi.  19.  Certainly 
this  text  does  not  look  as  if  the  practice  were 
harmless.     1  have  often  wondered  that  any 


193 

christians  would  urge  as  a  rer.son  for  rrcgfecft 
that  baptism  is  not  a  '  saving1  ordinance  j  there 
is  so  much  meanness  in  it,  and  it  certainly  con- 
veys the  idea  that  they  are  determined  to  have 
no  more  religion  than  is  sufficient  tokcepthern. 
out  of  hell ;  and  if  they  can  but  get  to  heaven, 
God's  glory  is  nothing  to  them  ;  yea,  that  they 
care  not  whether  He  is  pleased  or  di-plcased* 
I  know  there  are  thousands  of  godly  Pac  do- 
baptists  who  would  tremble  at  such  inferences: 
but  I  ask,  do  they  not  arise  out  of  the  excuses 
that  are  made  ?  But  infant  baptism  is  so  far 
from  being  a  small  tiling,  it  is  one  of  the  great- 
est of  evils,  and  has  been  the  fruitful  source  of 
most  of  the  calamities  that  have  overtaken  the 
christian  church ;  it  has  been  the  inlet  to  in- 
numerable other  evils,  and  never  will  the 
church  of  Christ  be  purged  and  appear  in  her 
primitive  simplicity  and  beauty,  until  this  most 
pernicious  practice  is  discontinued*  Baptism 
is  called  the  floor  into  the  church  fey  our  oppo- 
nents :  does  it  not  then  assume  the  greatest 
importance,  and  does  it  not  become. us  to  take 
care  that  the  door  is  sucfi  as  will  not  eventual- 
ly destroy  the  chitrch  itself  ?  All  pious  men 
k<»ow,  that  real  religion  consists  in  a  work  of 
grace  in  the  soul — a  new  and  spiritual  birth — » 
and  that  in  tins  work,  there  is  effected  a  change 
of  views,  of  affections,  and  of  pursuits  of  those 
who  are  the  partakers  of  it :  so  that  such  per- 
sons are  entirely  opposite  in  their  tempers  and 
dispositions,  to  the  rest  of  mankind  ;  nor  can 
they  hive  any  real  fellowship  with  them  in 
worldly  things,  and  none  at  all  in  spiritual  con* 

B 


194 

cerns,  for  there  is  not  the  least  agreement  of 
sentiment  here. 

I  now  ask,  what  was  a  church  state  set  up 
for  ?  Was  it  not  that  real  religious  persons 
might  be  associated  together  in  brotherly  love  ; 
and  by  enjoying  each  other's  conversation  and 
fraternal  assistance,  grow  up  in  their  holy  reli- 
gion, and  so  aid  each  other  in  seeking  everlas- 
ting life?  And  did  not  Christ  in  establishing 
the  gospel  church,  intend  they  should  hold  up 
to  the  view  of  sinful  men  the  excellency  of  the 
christian  religion,  and  thereby  practically  en- 
force in  their  view,  the  necessity  of  real  piety 
in  order  to  their  future  happiness  ?  But  infant 
sprinkling  has  corrupted  the  church  of  God — 
has  made  the  fountain  turbid — has  made  it  a 
mere  worldly  sanctuary — has  defeated  the  ends 
Christ  proposed  in  the  organization  of  this  re- 
ligious institution ;  and  the  children  of  God 
have  to  seek  in  retirement  that  comfort  they 
cannot  have  in  a  worldly  church ;  while  the 
wicked  are  hardened  in  their  infidel  principles, 
by  the  conduct  of  such  professors. 

My  Brethren  in  the  ministry,  who  are  in  the 
practice  of  infant  sprinkling,  and  have  felt  the 
power  of  religion  in  your  heart,  (for  to  carnal 
clergy  this  address  will  be  tasteless)  have  you 
surveyed  all  the  consequences  of  such  a  prac- 
tice, and  will  you  bear  with  me  while  I  dis- 
charge a  solemn  duty  which  I  owe  to  God  and 
to  you,  even  that  of  developingthe  evils  attend- 
ant upon  it  ?  You  well  know  that  in  chris- 
tian countries  (so  called)  near  nine  tenths  of 
the  people  have  received  what  is  termed  bap-, 


195 

tism  in  infancy,  and  you  have  told  us  baptism 
introduces  into  the  church.  Now  breth- 
ren, look  at  the  state  of  society ;  what  have  you 
done,  have  you  not  assisted  in  crouding  into 
the  church  of  Christ  the  children  of  satan  ?  Do 
yon  not,  by  these  means,  put  the  government 
of  the  church  into  the  hands  of  wicked  men, 
they  being  by  far  the  majority  ?  Infant  sprink- 
ling is  the  mean  by  satan  used  for  preventing  a 
religious  experience  being  given  in,  in  order 
to  admission  into  the  church  ;  hence  a  reH- 
gious  experience  ceases  to  be  necessary  to 
church  membership,  and  what  is  ihc  conse- 
quence ?  Is  it  not,  that  a  great  majority  of  such 
institutions  become  in  a  short  time  graceless 
persons  ?  And  these  churches,  what  are  they 
to  do  ?  Are  they  not  to  select  their  officers, 
such  as  ministers  and  deacons  ?  But  what  se- 
lections are  wicked  men  likely  to  make  ?  Will 
they  choose  pious  persons  to  rtil  such  starfons, 
or  are  they  not  generally  disposed  to  sit  under 
a  clergy  that  will  favor  their  vices  ;  and  to 
choose  deacons  and  elders,  who  Will  wink  at  sin  ;> 
If  it  should  be  asked,  why  are  so  manv 
churches  so  corrupt,  that  their  members  gener- 
ally live  in  all  the  fashions  and  gaiety  oft  he  age — 
attend  the  theatre — are  found  at  assemblies  and 
sinful  parties — are  profane  and  loose  in  their 
conversation  — neither  assemble  for  social  wor- 
ship, nor  adntitof religious  conversation  ahrsnr-* 
them  ;  the  answer  will  be  infant  sprinkKftp  js 
the  cause  of  all  this — it  has  made  them  mem- 
bers of  the  church.  Should  it  be  afcfced,  v>hv 
are  many  of  the  clergy  void  of  religion,  and 


196 

how  came  they  into  the  sacred  trust,  and  what 
led  to  their  being  selected  as  pastors  ?  the  an- 
swer is  still  the  same — infant  sprinkling  is  the 
cause  !  Should  it  be  asked,  why  mere  moral 
lectures,  elegant  diction,  flowery  language,  cor- 
rect composition*  should  be  called  gospel 
preaching  by  the  hearers  ;  when  at  the  same 
time,  human  ciepravhy  has  not  been  set  forth — 
or  the  new  birth  and  experimental  religion  in- 
sistcd  en — nor  Christ  hardly  mentioned,  much 
less  the  mysteries  of  his  cross,  and  the  complete- 
ness of  his  righteousness  displayed — but  on 
the  contrary,  a  total  ignorance  of  a  work  of 
gra.ee  on  the  preacher's  heart,  manifest  to  eve- 
ry spiritual  man  that  hears  him ;  the  answer  still 
is,  iniar. t  sprinkling  is  the  cause  of  all  this  :  for 
if  the  church  had  not  been  corrupted  by  it,  and 
the  majority  had  feared  God  and  loved  religion, 
they  never  could  sit  under  such  preachers. 

In  the  first  ages,  while  believers'  baptism 
was  in  practice,  the  churches  were  nearly  pure  ; 
but  ::0  sooner  did  that  desolating  evil  of  infant 
sprit)!-: ling  creep  in,  but  in  a  very  short  time 
the  face  of  the  church  was  changed.  Then  a 
carnal  clergy  succeeded — then  every  abomina- 
ble error  took  its  rise  ;  for  a  graceless  clergy 
could  do  no  less  than  err — then  in  a  little  time 
the  clergy  began  to  aim  at   worldly  power  and 

djgniiy then  the  harlot  oi  Rome  became  car- 

isscdar-d  established,  and  this  was  her  sup- 
port— then  a  wicked  clergy  under  pretence  c£ 
seeking  God's  honor,  interfered  in  the  politi- 
oal  concern.;  of  nations,  and  sowed  discord  a- 
lrions  princes,  and  provoked  the   most  cruel 


197 

wars.      Had    church-membership   continued 
on  the  plan  first  established  by  Christ,  and  had 
none  been  admitted  to  baptism   but  believers, 
or  such  as  gave  a  credible  account  of  a  work  of 
grace  on  the  heart,   the  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers in  churches  would  have  been  such  as  fear- 
ed God;  and  none  of  these  evils  would  have 
followed.     Infant  sprinkling  makes    a  carnal 
church  ;  a  carnal  church  only  can  be  a  fight- 
ing or  persecuting  church.     Infant  sprinkling,, 
and  infant  church- membership,   have  laid  the 
foundation  for  all  the  persecutions    that  have 
ever  been  practised  by  the  church   of  Rome  ; 
had  it  not  been  for  a  carnal  church,   the  fields 
of  Italy,    France,   Spain,  England,  Germany, 
would  never  have    been  covered  with  kjimaa 
gorc>  by  the  pretended  children   of  Christ.     I 
ask,  could  a  real  christian  church  be   a   perse- 
cuting church  ?     I  know  the  answer  must  be, 
it  cannot.     But  would  the    church  ever   have 
been  so  corrupt,  had  membership  therein  de- 
pended on  a  religious  experience?     It  will — 
it  must  be  conceded,  that  it  would  not.     But 
was  it  not  infant  sprinkling  that  occasioned  this 
religious  test  to  be  laid  aside  ?  and  if  it  were, 
is  it  not  to  this  dreadful  evil  all  the  consequen- 
ces are  owing. 

Infant  sprinkling,  by  corrupting  the  church 
of  God,  has  made  her  a  bloody,  a  persecuting 
church — is  now  that  tie  that  binds  church  anil 
state  together  on  the  continent,  (for  without  it 
there  could  be  no  national  church)  the  present 
cause  of  ungodly  and  shameful  persecutions-. 
Infant  sprinkling  is  that  which  in  Europe  has 

R2 


198 

settled  a  numerous  and  licentious  clergy,  who 
having  entered  into  the  political  schemes  of 
their  respective  governments,  have  m  return 
been  saddled  on  the  people  to  ride  them  to 
death,  and  are  the  cause  of  preventing  the  faith- 
ful preaching  of  the  gospel  by  others  ;  so  that 
irreligion  prevails  under  the  name  of  estab- 
lished religion,  and  no  means  can  be  used  to  re- 
medy it,  as  the  civil  power  is  enlisted  in  its  de- 
fence. 

But  to  come  nearer  home.  If  infant  sprink- 
ling, and  infant  church-membership  were  dis- 
continued, and  the  ancient  practice  of  receiv- 
ing persons  on  a  relation  of  religious  experi- 
«nce  were  revived  in  general ;  then,  in  a  little 
time  a  complete  separation  would  take  place 
between  the  church  and  the  world — churches 
would  harmonize; — an  unconverted  ministry 
would  be  banished — professors  would  not 
look  so  much  J  ike  the  world — the  church 
would  appear  amiable. --revivals  of  religion 
would  be  common,  for  the  prejudices  of  infi- 
dels and  others  that  now  exist  against  the 
churches,  on  account  of  their  wickedness, 
would  vanish — then  christians  would  take  u 
pleasure  in  God's  house — then  true  fellowship 
would  be  enjoyed — then  the  church  would  be 
the  envy  of  men,  and  terrible  to  the  wicked  as 
an  armv  with  banners—then  numerous  fami- 
lies would  not  be  confined  to  attend  places  of 
divine  worship,  to  hear  a  man  that  has  never 
known  the  way  to  heaven  himself,  has  no  ac- 
quaintance with  spiritual  things,  and  therefore 
cannot  teach  ihcm  toothers,  and  by  that  means 


\99 

thousands  would  not  be  deluded,  wno  are  now 
lulled  to  sleep  by  these  worst  of  enemies  to  the 
soul. 

Things  must  come  to  this  ;  the  latter  day 
glory  will  shortly  break  ;  then  infant  church 
membership  must  be  at  an  end,  and  already 
does  it  tremble  to  its  base  ;  and  the  feeble  ef- 
forts that  are  making  in  its  support  will  prove 
ineffectual.  But,  brethren,  lay  aside  a  prac- 
tice so  pernicious  in  its  consequences,  and  so 
derogatory  to  the  honor  and  glory  of  God  ; 
and  remember  your  responsibility  to  the  great 
head  of  the  church.  Can  you  call  that  harm- 
less, which  has  spoiled  the  beauty  of  the 
churchofGod,has  deluged  her  with  blood,  fill- 
ed her  with  errors,  and  which  now  makes  thou- 
sands rest  secure,  under  the  idea  that  they 
have  been  brought  into  covenant  with  God, 
and  made  christians,  while  their  steps  are  tak- 
ing hold  of  hell  V 

My  brethren  of  the  Baptist  denomination, 
permit  me  to  address  you  in  the  words  of  our 
brother  Baldwin  of  Boston. 

"  Beloved  Brethren — Unto  you  it  is  given, 
in  the  behalf  of  Christ ',  not  only  to  believe  on  him, 
but  to  suffer  for  his  sake.  From  the  days  of 
your  persecuted  ancestor,  who  was  obliged  to 
cross  the  Patucket,  to  enjoy  among  savages 
those  rights  of  conscience,  which  had  been 
denied  him  by  christians,  your  history  exhibits 
repeated  instances  of  cruel  mockings,  and  of 
the  spoiling  of  your  goods,  and  some  of  bonds 
and  imprisonment.  The  American  revolution 
has  meliorated  your  condition.      Truth  must 


200 

prevail.  Its  progress  will  naturally  be  more 
rapid,  when  not  impeded  by  religious  estab- 
lishments, and  penal  laws." 

"  We  beseech  yon,  brethren,  as  pilgrims 
and  strangers,  to  adorn  your  profession,  by  a 
holy,  humble  walk.  The  progress  of  your 
principles  and  increase  of  \  our  churches  (under 
God)  depends  not  less  upon  the  unblamable  - 
ness  of  your  lives,  than  upon  the  purity  of your 
sentiments.  If  your  brethren  hate  you,  and 
cast  you  out  for  h'13  name"  s  sake,  rt  quite  them 
only  with  kindness.  In  this  way  you  will  put 
to  silence  the  ignorance  of  foolish  men.  '1  he 
present  period  is  auspicious :  O  for  wisdom  to 
improve  it.  See  that  you  fall  not  out  by  the 
way.  I  inally,  brethren,  tee  beseech  you  that 
you  walk  roorihy  of  the  vocation  wherewith 
you  are  called  ;  with  all  lowliness  and  meek- 
ness, with  long-suffering,  forbearing  one  ano- 
ther in  love  ;  endeavouring  to  keep  the  unity 
of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace." 


ERRATA.— Pag*  S6,  12th1ir.ef.-cin  the  b«ttetoa,   for  Parr, 
wad  I'aul, 

Read  the  quotation  from  G*!ati»ns,  in  117  ar.d  118th  page*, 

as  follows— "But    when  it  pleased  Goil,  who 

called  me  by  his  gmc*  to  reveal  his  Son 

in  mc  that  I  might  preach  him,  &c." 

Place  the  inverted  commas  now  standing  in  the  first  line, 
page  14S,  at  the  end  of  the  paragraph. 
P;:ge  16:>,  loth  line  from  the  tap,  for  Atrtedin*,  read  .IhleJiuf. 
2i.  liae  from  tliu  bottom,  for  ZlulmaviM,   read 

SOitMi  «'!.'». 


INDEX. 

1.  The  Covenant  of  Circumcision  not 

the  Covenant  f  f  Grace,  6 

2.  The  Covenant  of  Grace  between  the 
Father  Sfthe  Son,  39 

3.  The  absurdity  of  the  representation 
that  the  Covenant  made  with  Abra- 
ham, merited  the  attention  of  every 
cue  from  Adam  to  the  end  of  the 
world,  62 

4.  The  existence  of  a  church  before  A- 
braham's  Day,  68 

5.  The  validity  of  John's  Baptism,  76 

6.  The  confirmation  of  John's  Baptism 

by  the  Apostle  Paul,  88 

7.  Remarks  on  Acts  ii.  2,  3,  4,  95 

8.  Butterworth's  definition  of  Baptism,  97 

9.  The  Baptism  of  Christ,  97 

10.  The  dispensation  of  John,  107 

11.  The  difference  between  the  Jewish 

and  Christian  Churches,  112 

12.  Quotation  from  Mr.  White  on  the 
same  subject,  122 

13.  Remarks  on  Romans,  11th  chapter,     139 

14.  The  Baptism  of  Households,  143 

15.  Quotations  from  Pscdobaptist  au- 
thors, proving  ail  that  the  Baptists 
state  on  the  Ordinance  of  Baptism, 


INDEX. 

and  its  subjects,  together  with  reflec- 
tions of  Mr.  Booth,  147 

16.  Quotations  from  Mr.  White,  expo- 
sing the  false  quotations  of  the  "  Au- 
thor of  a  Pamphlet,"  183 

17.  Mr.  White's  observations  on  Infant 
Sprinkling,  and  an  address  to  Paedo- 
baptist  Ministers,  194 

18.  Doctor  Baldwin's  address  to  the 
Baptists,  199 


IOUR  &?  WILLIAMS.  ¥, 

JSERMONS  ON  VARIOUS  SUBJECTS,: 
by  the   Reverend  Henry  Kollock,    d.  u  : 
in  one  S  vo.  volume — Price  S  %  5 
LAY  e  LAST  MINSTRI 

by  Walter  Scott.     12  mo.— .Price  75 

•A  FRIENDLY  VISIT  TO  THE  HOI       : 
MOURNING, 

)M'C ALL's    HISTORY    OF    GEORGIA,!; 
from  its  early   settlement   io  the   pre- 
day— Vol.  T   --Price  3  2  25,  to    .ubscri  ?| 
hers.— The  id  Vol  will  gq to  Press  ir<      '-' 
short  time. 

:THE  HISTORY  < )Y  ANN  MOOR,  the  re! 
ebrated  F  Woman— -by  Dr.*  J.  E 

White. .--Price  07  1  2  cts. 

■>*j     SEYMOUR  &  WILLIAMS*  keep  ton.f 
tantly  for  sale  a  larpe  collection  of  & 

RELIGIOUS  lOOKS. 

The  following  at  che  oi.glnal  subscription  priced 
SCOTT'S  BIBLE  ;    second  Philadelr 
geditign,  to  be  completed  in  5  Vols.  4to.  at 

lollars  each  :  4  Vols,  arc  out. 
GILL'Sv^XPOSITlON  of  the  Old  an 

N  ew  Te;  tament,  to  be  complete  I   in   0  Y^Is-lffr 

tto.  at  6  dojls.  per  Vol.  or  S  9  gant  calffc 

iidin^  :  ihr      volumes  are  oi.t. 

)OmiV^GE'S   FAMILY   EXPOSI-& 

•TOii  o/.'Uje  NllW  TESTAMENT  6voIs.]|t 

oifrdys  exposition  or  the  ol;  . 

PES  I  AMi :.NT,  5  vols.  Svo. 
The  complete  W;   !;s-  of  the  Rcvd.'  JOHNE. 
EWTOJ'J,  a  new  edition,  in  6  vols,  8vo. 
Ditto  ...  do.  in  11  vols.  12m0.  &c.   &c. 


